>Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:52:04 -0400
>To: UTCINFO
>From: Richard Rice <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Faculty Meeting Agenda for April 20
>
>TO:             MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY, DEANS, DIRECTORS,
>                   DEPARTMENT HEADS
>
>FROM:           Richard Rice, Faculty Secretary
>
>DATE:            April 16, 2004
>
>SUBJECT:      Faculty Meeting April 20
>
>The final regular faculty meeting of the 2003-2004 academic year will be
>on Tuesday, April 20 at 10:15 A.M. in Grote 129. Please put your name in
>the box prior to the meeting for the Barnes and Noble book drawing ($25).
>
>Refreshments will be available at 9:45 A.M. in the Grote lobby.
>
>                               Agenda
>
>1.      Call to order - Marvin Ernst
>2.      Approval of the minutes of March 17, 2004 [see below]
>3.      Election of At-Large Faculty Council Members for 2004-2005
>4.      Discussion and vote on new ACT requirements- Mike Russell
>5.      Report from the Provost - John Friedl
>6.      Report from the Faculty Council - Marvin Ernst
>7.      Report from the Faculty Federation - Richard Rice
>8.      Other Business
>9.      Announcements
>10.    Barnes and Noble Book Certificate Drawing (must be present to win)
>12.    Adjournment
>
>Note: A final Faculty Senate Meeting will immediately follow the meeting
>to conduct last-minute business. Following that, a brief organizational
>meeting of the new Senate will be held. If you have been elected for next
>year by your division, please plan to stay.
>_______________________________________________________________
>The next regular faculty meeting will be September 14 (T) 2004 at 3:15
>P.M. in Grote 129. Please mark this date in your calendars NOW to avoid
>scheduling conflicts, especially if you are the chair of a committee. It
>is important that faculty committees not be scheduled in conflict with the
>faculty meetings.
>
>
>The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
>Faculty Minutes
>March 17, 2004
>
>Faculty Senate President Marvin Ernst called to order the Second Called
>Faculty Meeting of 2003-2004 at 3:20 P.M.
>
>First item was approval of the minutes of February 26, 2004.  Prof.
>Fanning moved approval; Prof Collins seconded. Approved.
>
>Second item was to eliminate faculty approval of the graduation list.
>Prof. Ernst suggested declassifying it as a major issue [thereby not
>requiring a second reading]. Prof. Sachsman moved approval; Prof.
>McCullough seconded. Approved. Discussion followed.
>
>Prof. Russell: My committee thought about this and the origins at UC when
>everyone knew all students. We think it is superfluous in a large modern
>university. Only occasionally in my 34 years has there been a faculty
>question at the meeting. The Records Office is careful about fulfillment.
>
>Prof. Hutchinson: I disagree. The real problem is that the faculty do not
>care enough to follow through and come to faculty meetings. Lazy
>colleagues are the problem.
>
>Prof. Ernst: I agree, faculty do need to participate, but many are in classes.
>
>Prof. Sturzer: The board could approve or disapprove our candidates.
>
>Prof. Sachsman: A friendly amendment: send the list electronically to
>faculty. Faculty can then contact Records Office. Seconded by Prof. Hiestand.
>
>Sandy Zitkus: Many times faculty call me to say that an individual will
>not pass; it is very helpful as we prepare for graduation.
>
>Prof. Barrow: Sometimes we can catch mistakes and cheating.
>
>Prof. Nelson: I am in favor of retaining the tradition of formal approval
>of the graduates.  What's next, doing away with graduation?
>
>Prof. Ernst called a vote. The amendment to electronically distribute the
>list passed.
>
>Prof. Rushing: Will we say at graduations that students have been
>reviewedrather than approved.
>
>Prof. Arfken: To clarify, do we assume the approval is tacit?
>
>Prof. Ernst called for a vote to eliminate the approval at faculty
>meetings, as amended per Prof. Sachsman, and it passed.
>
>Second item was the second reading of the proposal to eliminate as
>university requirements oral communication, writing, and computer literacy.
>
>Prof. Sturzer made a motion to separate, and it was seconded. The motion
>failed.
>
>Prof. Kuhn: The reason for dropping the courses is rational, but wrong. I
>have not heard a good reason for dropping the requirements. Not every
>department can handle these skills.
>
>Prof. McCullough: If they are no longer university requirements we lose
>one level of administration.
>
>Prof. Darken: My argument at the last meeting was that these three
>requirements are important. Apparently nobody has argued otherwise.
>Instead some say students will get these skills but will pick them up in
>other ways...by osmosis?  There is no data to support this. On the contrary.
>
>Others say that we will teach these skills anyway even if they are not
>required; we just dont like being monitored. I find this a bad argument.
>Many departments will not meet these important needs unless they are
>monitored. It was mentioned that accreditation agencies are watching. But
>this is not true for all departments. When I was in charge of General
>Education back in the late 1990's we included these requirements in the
>new General Education program precisely because these were not being
>taught in many departments. Note that there has been a huge surge in the
>number of students taking the computer literacy course and speech courses.
>
>Some say other requirements are more important than these three
>requirements, particularly courses in the majors. I understand that some
>departments even want to drop the requirements to preserve electives. I
>disagree but accept this as a rational argument.
>
>Prof. Sachsman called question; Prof. McCullough seconded; motion failed.
>
>However, there was not further discussion and Prof. Ernst called the question.
>The vote was 64 in favor of eliminating the university requirements; 59
>opposed.
>
>Next item was the proposal to eliminate the P.E. requirement.
>
>Prof. Fanning: We have met the mandate of 120 hours.
>
>Prof. Trimpey: Some programs will not drop these classes, so it is too
>soon to say we have met the 120 hour requirement.
>
>Prof. Fanning: It was asked last time if there is supporting evidence if
>those who took courses did better than those who did not. We did a
>published UTC study that showed it did make a difference. Our students
>were less likely to be obese, and a Canadian study and others found the
>same results. It has been cut from middle school, high school, and now
>UTC. The result is $1.7 trillion cost in health care; 70% would go away if
>we were physically active. Congressman Wamp has asked us not to drop the
>requirement. Thank you. [applause]
>
>The motion to eliminate the P.E. requirement passed, 66 to 42.
>
>There was no other business, but Prof. Ernst announced that at the Senate
>meeting tomorrow the proposed new peer groups will be discussed by Provost
>Friedl and Richard Greutzemacher.
>
>Prof. Ernst adjourned the meeting at 3:55 P.M.
>
>Respectfully submitted,
>Richard Rice, Faculty Secretary
>________________________________________________________________________
>Note the final regular Faculty Meeting of 2003-2004 will be April 20 at
>10:15 A.M. Refreshments will be served at 9:45 A.M. Please make a note on
>your calendar now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>