Memorandum
TO: MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY, DEANS, DIRECTORS, DEPARTMENT
HEADS
FROM: Richard Rice, Faculty Secretary
DATE: 10 November 2003
SUBJECT: Faculty Meeting
The second regular faculty meeting of the 2003-2004 academic year will take
place on Wednesday, November 12, at 3:15 p.m. in the Benwood
Auditorium. Refreshments will be available at 2:45 p.m. in the Benwood
area lobby.
There will be a prize drawing (gift certificate of $25 from Barnes and
Noble) at the conclusion of the meeting: please place your name in the box
prior to the meeting. You must be present to win.
Agenda
1. Call to order
2. Approval of the minutes of September 9 and 11, 2003 (see below)
3. Approval of Graduation Candidates for December 2003 -- Sandy Zitkus
4. Report from the Faculty Council President -- Marvin Ernst
Approval Ed.D. in Education
Faculty/Staff External Funding Incentive Program
Sexual Harassment Policy
Nominations for Faculty Senate President (procedure only)
120 hour rule Steering Committee
5. Report from the Provost -- John Friedl
6. Report from the Chancellor -- Bill Stacy
7. Impact of the Tennessee Lottery -- Jonathan Looney
8. Other Business
9. Announcements
10. Prize drawing: $25 Book Gift Certificate at any Barnes and Noble
11. Adjournment
The next regular faculty meeting will be Thursday, January 22, at 3:15
P.M. Please mark your calendar now!
The University of
Tennessee at Chattanooga
Faculty Minutes
September 9, 2003
Prof. Marvin Ernst, President of the Faculty Senate, called to order the
first regular faculty meeting of the 2003-2004 academic year at 3:15 P.M.
First item was approval of the minutes of April 22, 2003. Professor Leroy
Fanning moved approval, seconded by Prof. David Garrison. The minutes were
approved.
Prof. Ernst announced that Jim Hiestand has once again agreed to be
parliamentarian.
Second item was election of At-Large Faculty Senate Members for 2003-2004.
Profs. Henry Spratt, Ron Goulet, Andy Novobilski, Jeff Rush, Greg ODea,
Neal Coulter, Collin Eigenberg, David Pittenger, Shela Van Ness, Katheryn
Thompson, Neslihan Alp, and Jim Henry were nominated. The election results
were: Jim Henry for Full Professor, Greg ODea for Associate Professor, and
Neal Coulter for Assistant Professor.
Third item was election of a new member to the Faculty Administrative
Relations Committee. Prof. Pedro Campa was nominated by Prof. Efaw and
seconded by Prof. Noe. It was moved that nominations be closed and Prof.
Campa was elected by unanimous voice vote.
Fourth item was a report by Faculty Senate President Marvin Ernst. His
letter to THEC about the 120 hour limit on degree programs was answered,
but the 120 hour issue was ignored. On the other hand, he and other Senate
Presidents were invited to a meeting with Governor Bresden to discuss the
faculty role in a new Presidential search. After some discussion, the group
advocated four faculty members, chosen from UTK (2) and two others chosen
from Martin, the Medical School, and UTC. If the governor approves, we will
have an open selection process here to choose our representative.
The Senate has also looked into the matter of the Freshman Seminar. The
Sexual Harassment Policy has been posted on Raven for faculty response to
the draft, and Prof. Stephanie Bellar will coordinate the response to those
concerns.
The extra service pay issue has not been resolved, but the Senate will have
a say before administrative action is taken. [See below for more on this
issue.]
The EDO has been revised for this year from three to four categories:
Exceeds Expectation for rank, Meets Expectations, Needs Improvement, and
Unsatisfactory.
President Ernst also spoke about faculty and staff having some budget
input: the Exempt Staff Council and other employee groups will discuss how
raises are determined. There will also be five year reviews of
administrative salaries, an effort coordinated by Profs. Verbie Prevost and
Joanie Sompayrac.
Fifth item was introduction of new faculty by their respective Deans. There
were 18 new faculty this year [compared to 52 last year]. There were five
new faculty in Education and Applied Professional Studies, two regular
positions in Nursing and three one-year positions; no new faculty in
Business; three in Engineering and Computer Science; ten in Arts and
Sciences (seven lecturers).
Sixth item was a report from Chancellor Bill Stacy. Using Powerpoint
visuals, he noted that enrollment this fall was 8,529. FTE was 7,137.7 (an
increase of 1.25%) and minority enrollment was 1,607 (an increase of
4.22%). Campus housing was up 400 and is at 97% capacity. Freshman
enrollment was 1,411 (up 210) with an average GPA of 3.2 (up from 3.1),
with an ACT of 21.6. The 21 Honors students had ACT scores of 29 and a GPA
of 3.89.
Retention was another issue: Freshman-Senior year drop-out rates were
32.7%; 24.2%; 18.9%; 16.8%. This is an issue we need to study. [Might have
something to do with the instructional budget]
Full time faculty was down two positions from 2002, and there are freshman
class overloads and advising problems. [Might have something to do with the
instructional budget] Grants have increased, and the Chancellor praised the
faculty for their continuing success in publishing and creative efforts.
Scholarships have increased, and the lottery funds will increase access to
UTC in the future. New grants will enhance current scholarships next year
to pay a higher percentage of college costs. The Chancellor mentioned he is
talking with Wamp, Frist, and Alexander to enhance our resources.
Lupton funds will support the SimCenter for three years, a new renaissance
initiative for research and learning. Computational Engineering, will be
its first focus with four new faculty hires. It will be the first free
standing research building for 18 researchers in engineering, computer
science, and math. Only two other sites exist, at Caltech and Bochum Germany.
The University Center is partly open, with the entire building scheduled
for completion in January 2004. Race Hall will be renovated by October; UTC
Place expansion will be finished in August 2004. In December we will
graduate our first doctorate in Physical Therapy, and the Ph.D. in
Computational Engineering has been approved. We are now in SACS good graces.
The Chancellor concluded with a slide showing recent faculty achievements,
including Prof. Jacksons Guggenheim Award, Roland Carters recognition, the
Tuba trip to France, and he recognized Profs. McCallister and Ellington in
educational outreach.
Inviting everyone to Thursday's budget discussion, the Chancellor left
immediately.
Seventh item was a detailed 20 point brief responding to Professor
Townsend's recent email by Provost Friedl, who felt insulted by
implications embedded in the message.
Provost Friedl began by saying that Prof. Townsend was upset when he moved
money out of the honors restricted fund, and Townsend went public via Raven
(email) with what was usually a private matter. Townsend was removed as
Director of the Honors Program in July and has twice appealed to the
Chancellor to get his job back, and then posted personal attacks on Friedl
and Stacy. Faculty will not always agree with my decisions, said Friedl,
but trust in the fairness of administrative decisions is important.
The Provost stated that he found $144,000 in surplus scholarship money in
the honors account, and Townsend handed out $60,000 of it at a public
ceremony with the Chancellor without prior notification to students who
neither expected nor deserved extra money. Townsend then suggested they use
it in the stock market or give it to charity. The build-up occurred because
state funds had been used first to support honors students, so restricted
honors scholarships did not have to be the full amount. UTC had a
significant need to cut the budget in the spring due to the state financial
crisis. [In that there is considerable animosity between Prof. Townsend
and Provost Friedl, I do not include below every subsequent references to
Prof. Townsends conduct in the questions below. See attachment below for
Prof. Townsends response. Shortly after this response, Vice Chancellor
Brown announced to the press that the Honors Program was going to be audited]
Provost Friedl proceeded to comment on each of the 20 questions posed by
Prof. Townsend:
1. How much money does the administration hope to collect or save by
demanding a cut from grants awarded to the University faculty?
$280,000 was saved this year as indirect cost recoveries were frozen.
This salary
savings is our contingency fund.
2. How much money does the administration hope to save by insisting that
staff members teach classes like Freshmen Seminar and English 121 only
after business hours?
UTC will not save any money; faculty will be paid their normal amount.
3. Why has the Provost written that he will no longer allow faculty to
receive extra service pay for extra service, like interviewing prospective
honors students on Sundays, even when funds have been reserved to provide
this pay?
The extra service pay policy is system-wide, but it is now on the back
burner, so we
will wait [ Shortly after the meeting, it was learned that the issue
was indeed current;
however, via the Faculty Federation the Senate learned of a possible
option and
established a committee to look into this]
4. Does the Chief Academic Officer see any worth to attending
departmental meetings to see how faculty is doing and to seek their input?
Yes, there is worth in visiting department. I have met with Heads and
have been
invited to meetings to talk and listen. I will try to visit all
departments.
5. Why hasn't the administration responded to complaints about the
untimely compensation for faculty teaching in the summer terms?
Summer pay will be done in a timely manner next year.
Prof. Campa: Adjuncts were not paid on time this year.
Prof. Ernst: This is not a dead issue, we are looking into it.
Vice-Chancellor Brown: We are working with the UT system
administration to see
that all three sessions are paid in a timely way next year.
6. What ever happened to the $500,000 promised to support General Education
Reform?
This was before my time. I do not know.
7. Does the Provost really think (as he intimated in yesterday's paper)
that faculty work less than administrators and therefore deserve smaller
salaries? Does he not realize that college professors work an average of 53
hours a week?
I did not say that [Provost Friedl glanced at the reporter in
question]; what I said was
that faculty and administrators have different responsibilities.
8. Why has the Provost chosen not to follow official university procedures
by evaluating the deans and directors under his authority? Does he not
realize that if deans and directors are exempt from annual evaluation, it
makes it difficult to expect department heads, faculty or staff to submit
their EDOs and EDEs?
Last year Prof. Trimpey did evaluations since he knew the personnel.
This year the
Chancellor has not initiated a review so far.
9. Will the administration be willing to guarantee never again to
withdraw money from private scholarship funds and gift accounts to meet
general university deficits? Do they not realize that if department heads
and directors do not maintain exclusive control over such restricted funds
that donations intended to support specific programs will be threatened?
Restricted funds should not be misused. Stock market investment and
charity is not a
legitimate use of scholarship money.
10. Will the administration agree that deans, directors and department
heads have an obligation to serve as vigorous advocates for their programs,
even when such advocacy involves them in disagreements with the
administration?
Yes, Deans and Directors should be advocates. I want strong
administrators who know
how to make hard decisions.
11. May we know exactly how Mr. Lupton's $25 million has been spent so far?
Chancellors Stacy and Brown deal with that.
12. If it's true that there exists between $300,000 and $500,000 in
operational carry-over funds from last year, why did the administration
feel the need to take all of our travel funds?
Because operational carry-overs are one-time, whereas travel funds
are an annual
on-going expense. We had to take $5.2 million from the state budget.
This years
budget is based on the last year. Travel had to be considered with
other priorities.
13. How serious is the Provost about imposing term limits on university
administrators?
I will explore term limits on administrators.
14. How does the administration intend to pay four new faculty members
$200,000 each next year?
They will not get $200,000, that is a misconception spread by the
media. On average
they will get only $150,000, but mandated benefits (32%) are
budgeted&the total is
$792, 779.
15. How much money has the SimCenter cost the university at this point?
When will the Center become self-supporting?
Only Vice-Chancellor Brown or Debbie Parker knows the costs and
support needed
for the SimCenter.
16. Given the Chancellor's own expertise in Public Communications, why
did he feel the need to hire a PR person like Missy Crutchfield in the
first place? Did he not suspect that it would appear odd to hire the
daughter of a major supporter at what appears to be an inflated salary?
You will have to ask the Chancellor.
17. Why have we had four different Provosts in the past six years? And why
have we recently lost such seemingly devoted, long-time employees as Judy
Fry and Susan Cardwell?
I don't know why they left; maybe there will be a fifth. Judy Fry
retired and Susan
Cardwell resigned. It is not appropriate to discuss personnel matters.
18. Does the Chancellor think it is wise to divorce himself from all
matters pertaining to academics, leaving all such matters in the hands of a
new Provost, however capable he may be?
I consult frequently with the Chancellor on any matter of importance
or risk. If he
wanted to run academic affairs, he would not need me.
19. Why has the Provost introduced - without having prepared an impact
study or even to discuss the issue with a single department head - a formal
proposal to the Faculty Senate to move all the science departments from the
College of Arts and Sciences into the College of Engineering?
The reorganization plan was discussed by some department heads. Note
that the
proposal asks the faculty to decide this matter. It will not happen
if the Faculty Senate
does not approve. [It was voted down at a subsequent Senate Meeting]
20. Is the administration aware that the faculty and staff at this
institution will have very little tolerance for any stock administrative
utterances like "I was only trying to save jobs," or "we really do care
what you all think," or "it didn't cost the academic side of this
institution anything to increase administrative salaries?"
Yes, I am aware.
Concluding, Provost Friedl stated that he was not doing it for the money,
and in fact had made more in Michigan where he also had a flourishing law
practice. He is here for the challenge of administration in difficult
times. He will be gone when the problems are solved. He stated that in
these difficult times there is even greater need for mutual trust and
understanding, otherwise we will continue to have constant battles&we will
get nowhere. Consider well what you want.
Faculty: That you for delaying further action on extra-service pay. Can the
indirects be released?
Friedl: On a case by case basis. Some grants actually require disbursement,
but others will be frozen until we see what the situation is in November.
Prof. Darken: We have trusted the administration with complex decisions,
but there is a perception about problems in setting priorities. You say the
carry over savings is only one-time and cannot be shifted, but it does not
make sense to cut travel made last spring from the base budget.
Prof. Williams: These are difficult times. Lets keep communications open,
and not question motives, otherwise there will be less communication.
There was no other business.
There were no announcements.
The door prize, a $30 gift certificate for a cake from Rembrandts in Bluff
View, was won by Jennifer Beech, English Department and Director of the UTC
Writing Center.
The meeting adjourned at 4:42 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Richard Rice
Faculty Secretary
The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Faculty Minutes
September 11, 2003
This meeting, called by Faculty Secretary Richard Rice, was organized by
Professor Marvin Ernst, President of the Faculty Senate, and various
employee groups to offer a question and answer forum for Chancellor Stacy.
It began at 3:03 P.M. in the Benwood Auditorium. As a joint meeting, the
normal protocols for a Faculty Meeting were suspended. It should be
considered a continuation of the September 9, 2003 meeting where questions
about salaries and the UTC budget process were deferred until today.
Prof. Ernst opened the meeting explaining the cooperative effort to hold
such a question and answer meeting. Questions were solicited in writing,
some will be answered privately in email, but this session will be
professional.
Ernst said that $600,000 in carry-over funds will be given to divisions to
spend at their discretion; $250,000 for salaries to go to the divisions as
a result of the Budget Committee meeting today.
This morning at a meeting the Chancellor agreed to open communications, and
Vice Chancellor Richard Brown also pledged to open discussion. This meeting
is a beginning, not an end. Open communication and process should be based
on priorities and not on someones individual will. We will try to
reestablish trust at UTC.
There are two parts in todays format: questions that have been identified
will be put to Chancellor Stacy and then there will be 2-3 follow-up
questions from the audience before moving on to the next question. If there
is time at the end, further questions will be possible. Prof. Ernst said he
would moderate and cut-off personal issues and ensure questions will not be
longer than the answers.
Julia Cronin noted that $75,000 awarded today for salaries are not part of
the nine administrative raises.
We hope to restore unity. UTC is unique in that we do have a voice in
budget matters.
Prof. Ernst: Minutes will be distributed by the councils.
Stacy: Thanks for opportunity. I will enjoy interaction. I have tried to
assist in planning and mission, big goals. I am a gather of resources, we
were on the road to best liberal arts school in America and engaged with
the community. Teaching and learning are important. Ultimately the classes
and students are the goal.
Q: Is there a plan to address all campus units?
S: We will be better if we look at all units of the university. I asked
Richard Brown how we project revenue to have sense of future costs. There
is little to cut. Dealing with a reduction of $.5 million in budget is
difficult. It is unique to ask the campus community to decide the budget in
committee.
Q: PDQs were done in past, but no response nor monetary improvement resulted.
S: Compensation has been across the board (modest) and promotions,
equity, and other individual rewards. Low paid non-exempt staff will be
first to be improved.
Q: What about technology funds? A millions and a half each year are spent.
S: We have tried to access technology, and have to decide when enough has
been spent.
Q: We hear a lot about communication via the media instead of on campus.
S: If it is everybody's business it is nobody's business. I meet each week
with administrators and other councils. I think this is a proper concern. I
am sorry about weak internal communication. We will look at that.
Q: Do we have to have $225,000 a year for the Mocs Express and Aramark?
S: We do not subsidize Aramark. Parking has been reduced and a Carta
shuttle service initiated. Some faculty enjoy the Mocs Express, but we will
look again as some parking has been restored. [about 15 in audience
indicated use of the bus shuttle]. It is part of the mission as well a
budget item.
Q: How do you handle units where income falls short of expectations?
S: Simcenter and this building are building on strengths for the future.
I do not see more that 4-5 niche Ph.D. programs at UTC. We see computation
will be important to all hard sciences, so we are doing computational
engineering first with Oak Ridge support on the information highway.Lupton
provided start-up funds to allow other academic efforts. A group of experts
have been assembled with no immediate competition except Caltech and Bochum
Germany. It will provide new programs for other sciences. We used $2.5
million from the Lupton funds. We have not had Ph.D. levels, and trailed
UTK in salaries. We will now get Ph.D. level state funding. Beyond two
years, and if the state cuts funds, where will the money come from? UC
Foundation will back up this program if needed to provide continuity.
Q: Why isn't Joe Johnson down here?
Ernst: We did not invite him, but he should come down here in the future.
S: I think it is good that Joe Johnson is where he is. His first staff
meeting was a relief and he will not waste money [as the last President].
Q: Simcenter is important, but it is a question of priorities. Is it worth
it to offer that kind of money for a new program at the expense of existing
programs? Should not everyone have a fair salary?
S: We have a variability of salaries, but recruitment requires paying
higher market rates leading to compression. But if we want a renaissancewe
have to pay market rates. The Simcenter has to be a splendid program. This
will dramatically change UTC in a small niche, but with no intent to
disrespect faculty who have labored for years. We don't pay anybody enough.
We are closer to the AAUP mean, but grievances harm those with lower salaries.
Q: We don't pay anyone enough? What about administrators?
Q: If the Simcenter does not support itself, will not the UC Foundation
support take money from other programs?
S: Yes, the center needs to become self-supporting, but any program has to
have security of continued funding.
Q: What about Occupational Therapy?
S: The accrediting program wanted a better and more costly program.
Q: How much do we subsidize Aramark?
Vice-Chancellor Brown: Students voted for imposing a food service fee. The
compromise was that all students should pay, not just dorm residences.
[What were the options given to students?]
Q: What about the process of raises and why some areas are cut back while
some non-academic areas see increases?
S: Raises come to me as a recommendation and adjustment to exempt personnel
to determine equity with peer institutions. It was a target group that
needed attention. The year closed with some extra money. They deserved it.
[presumably the rest of us did not]
Q: There has been a lot of questioning about peer salaries. Professor
Garrett's numbers on Raven were much less than Chancellor Brown's figures.
Could you not look into these numbers?
S: Your 100% salary is AAUP average. We will find it. They were in
Chronicle recently.
Prof. Ernst : We will look at this issue and get some real figures.
Q: When will we reach the mean of AAUP salaries?
S: We have a five year goal, including adjuncts.
Q: What was the source of funds to increase salary lines to increase
special assistant and assistant to the Chancellor positions?
S: Dr. Shearer was at the Dean's level, and half his salary comes from my
office. Missy Crutchfield has cried each day, and I reget that too. We
wanted an internal ombudsman person. We wanted to add new roles for the
position: fund raising, alumni magazine writing, television programs better
than Channel 3, marketing, governmental relations, all skills that changed
the position. We had four finalists in the search, and it was sized at
$76,000, but our best candidate was paid more than that and was expecting a
raise. We needed to fix the television situation which justified $12,000 more.
Q: Don' we have a Development Office for some of those functions?
S: We have vacancies in that office, University Relations, and other offices.
Q: We lay off people who have been here 20 years because we dont have money
keep them&.Some are forced to go on flex time while your assistant's salary
went up!
S: I didn't lay off people to make ends meet. Cutting $5 million was painful.
Q: I feel devalued since my program has not been funded at previous levels.
S: I am sorry for offense and do not intend to devalue personnel. I hope
one event in one year does not define me. I value what you do in student
services.
Q: Is the hiring freeze for faculty only? What about staff?
S: We tried to freeze everything in Spring, but then reality set in; we had
to take care of incoming students, so we funded counseling for Student
Affairs. It is selective. New positions freeze is still keen, but
replacements are considered according to needs. The Vice President for
Development is essential as we enter a new funding campaign. So we are
mostly frozen, but continuing to battle to restore faculty. The Provost
thinks there will be $5-6 million more needed for faculty next year.
Q: Why are staff with excellent EDOs not rewarded?
S: It is a question of available money. We would like to do more. Faculty
get $2,000 in PTR, and we would like to do more for staff. [the post-tenure
review system has been discontinued]
Q: The bottom are in the bottom and need raises!
S: Yes, let's deal with those.
Q: We have been told over and over to cut costs and cut costs and your
actions seem to disregard staff year after year. Those with outstanding
awards do not get rewards. No one cares about us, and we make nothing while
Missy Crutchfield is hired!
S: Yes.
Q: How do we keep good staff from leaving?
S: We are in this together. The Budget Committee looks at the options and
difficult choices for allocation. We cancelled the Dickerson visit which
would address priorities.
We have to decide. We have to get more money or cut expenditures. Everyone
is looking for ways to cut expenses. We want to invest in people and we
will try harder.
Q: If a department saves $50,000 how come that money goes elsewhere? I have
not got a 32 cent raise in four years!.
S: I hope you get a raise.
Ernst: I want to end the formal part.
S: I am sorry if I offended you, but please help me get the institution
back towards its potential.
Ernst: I thank the Chancellor for the formal questions.
Q: We still have confidence, and what about extra service pay and
in-kinds. We have earned $ ¾ million since May, and I could not get extra
service pay. What about this 20% limit on extra service pay. Indirects take
from us resources we need. Send a message that would let us earn.
S: Good plan, I will examine this when I find out. I like your ability to
earn. I like the entrepreneurial spirit. I will get a straight answer [from
Knoxville]. [Susequent to this meeting the Faculty Federation learned that
another campus in the UT system had devised a plan two-three years ago; the
Faculty Senate agreed to look into this option and report back.]
Q: Even if a salary increase is not possible, what about the insurance
increase?
S: We did put $1 million to help with the increase last year and we will
try to help as much possible. The Budget Committee will look at this.
[Subsequent to this meeting Blue Cross announced a refund plan as
expenditures were less than expected; Chancellor Brown said that this would
not apply to the UT system as we had already recovered those savings in our
plan&yet insurance increases substantially in December 2003]
Q: The facilities area has a reduction in positions constantly over the
years while we have more buildings to service.
S: It is the $5 million that prevents us from maintaining staff in
maintenance to service the physical plant.
Q: Can we not have a goal on your report card of 50% of the budget for the
instructional budget?
S: This would be a great goal. Most institutions like us have about 40%.
Ernst: This is just a beginning. All councils are committed to
communications and will see that actions follow promises.
Prof. Ernst Adjourned the meeting at 4:25 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Richard Rice
Faculty Secretary
|
