I invite Professor Goulet, and indeed any faculty member, to attend the
open meetings of the Faculty Senate held the first and third Thursday each
month to support his or her perspective, including support or opposition to
issues before the Senate. We operate under Roberts Rules of Order and the
Faculty Handbook, which permits expression of the broad spectrum of
viewpoints Prof. Goulet supports.

The Senate does  --and is indeed intended to --  reflect the views of the
UTC faculty determined in an open, democratic process. However, actions are
determined by a majority vote, not consensus, however desirable that might be.

As President, I fully intend to carry out the will of the Senate as
reflected in our deliberations, including presentation of resolutions and
other communications as directed to the proper audience. For example, if
the Senate should consider a resolution supporting or opposing pending
legislation on "Academic Rights" it would be entirely appropriate exercise
of authority for us to take a position.

The above comments should not be taken as endorsing any pending issues
facing the Senate; it is merely a clarification of process.

Richard Rice
Senate President

At 11:50 AM 3/3/2005 -0500, Ron Goulet wrote:
>RE: A Concern About the Endorsement of Pending Legislation by the UTC
>Faculty Senate
>
>UTC Faculty Senate endorsement of the above captioned (apparently
>self-serving) legislation is, IMHO, an inappropriate exercise of the
>Academy's authority.
>
>This Institution should, instead, fulfill its responsibility to establish a
>pluralism of perspectives and to expose our constituents to the broad
>spectrum of viewpoints.
>
>If a group of faculty and staff wish to represent themselves as Overworked
>Faculty and Staff for a Pay Hike, go for it!  But please do not hang the
>name of this Institution on the letterhead.
>
>
>
>
>Ronald U. Goulet, Ph.D., P.E.
>Associate Professor Mechanical Engineering
>College of Engineering and Computer Science
>University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
>Dept. 2502    EMCS 432
>615 McCallie Ave
>Chattanooga, TN 37403-2598
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: UTC Staff E-Mail List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dr.
>Joe Dumas
>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:57 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF] Faculty Senate tables motion on across-the-board pay
>increase
>
>Fritz Efaw wrote:
> > Misdirection is a technique used by prestidigitators ...
> > ... Last week's senate meeting contained a deftly
> > executed misdirection.
>
>I resent the charge of misdirection.  You can agree with me or not, but
>WYSIWYG ... what you see is what you get.  I have some sincere concerns
>about the bills you were pushing, and I wanted more time for all faculty
>to consider them before any votes were taken.  I used a standard
>parliamentary procedure (tabling a motion) to buy that time.  By my
>estimate of the voice vote, I would say about 3/4 of our faculty senate
>colleagues agreed with me that more time was appropriate.  I don't think
>it is fair to label my actions as "misdirection."  Your mileage,
>however, may vary.  It usually does.
>
> > 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.
>
>I based my argument in favor of tabling the motion on the message that
>Fritz, himself, sent directly to Faculty Senators (but not to all
>faculty) *one day* before the Senate meeting.  To wit:
>
> >>> 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, not I, referred to "as provided in two" (specific) "bills" in your
>message.  I looked up these bills, even providing links so that others
>could do so:
>
> >>> >>> 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
>
>I understood your motion as a request for Faculty Senate to endorse
>these bills.  I find these bills to be unacceptable for the reasons I
>mentioned during the meeting, among others.  Perhaps, if they are
>amended to address these several concerns expressed by me and others, I
>could support them.  But they had not been so amended by the time of the
>meeting.  If nothing else, tabling the motion for at least two weeks
>would have allowed the sponsors to make any needed changes.  I note,
>however, that as of tonight no amendments have been filed, nor any
>fiscal note added.  Therefore, I still cannot support these bills nor
>any motion explicitly or implicitly endorsing them.
>
> > 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 have no desire to shut down *informed* debate.  However, I represent
>my constituents, none of whom had more than one day to consider the
>measure and inform me of their concerns.  We needed more information,
>and we needed more time to assimilate it before voting.  If you want to
>bring the subject back up at another meeting, that is fine with me and I
>will debate the proposal on its merits or lack thereof.  But I will not
>be part of a "railroad job" to ram an endorsement through without time
>for adequate consideration by all faculty, including (but not limited
>to) Senators.
>
> > 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
>
>No, but your intent was obviously to have Faculty Senate *endorse*
>legislation.  Which is not something we should do lightly, if at all
>(one can agree or disagree with Roger Briley's comments).  *If* it is
>appropriate that we endorse legislation -- and, like Roger, I'm not sure
>it is -- that should only be done after careful consideration.  I did
>not find one day's notice conducive to careful consideration of the
>proposal on its merits.
>
> > Rather,
> > my intention was to call the Board's attention to a specific piece of
> > legislation
>
>Ah, so you admit that your intent was related to a specific bill(s)
>rather than an across-the-board raise in general.  I could cry
>"misdirection" as well upon reading this, but that would not contribute
>to the quality of discussion.
>
> > The motion was given to the senate president 3 days before the meeting
>
>But to the rest of us, only one day before, and to faculty and staff in
>general, not at all (had I not posted it to RAVEN).
>
> > 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.
>
>But the *bills* clearly refer to all employees in higher education.  And
>you *were* promoting specific bills, per your e-mail message to Faculty
>Senators the day before the meeting and your admission above.
>
> > 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.
>
>Ah, but that is cloaked by the overly broad language of the bills.  The
>bills refer to all employees, not just all with satisfactory ratings.
>Bills, when passed, become state law -- which supersedes university
>policy.  Unless the bills were rewritten to refer to this policy, "all"
>means "all" -- regardless of a satisfactory or unsatisfactory EDO
>rating, full or part-time status, etc.  That is a huge weakness (or
>maybe a very sly obfuscation, but I'm trying to give sponsoring
>legislators the benefit of the doubt) in the proposed legislation.
>
>(Take the previous statement in the context of the fact that I am not a
>lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.  For that matter, neither does Fritz.
>Our Provost is an attorney and could perhaps clarify the legalities of
>this matter.  But my clear understanding, absent authoritative
>correction, is that bills, once passed and signed by the Governor,
>become law ... and state laws cannot be overridden by University or THEC
>policy.)
>
> > 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.
>
>Glad you admit this.  It will save me much further argument....
>
> > I would welcome any appropriate amendment to the
> > MEMO, although presuming to amend the BILL is exactly what I wish to
>avoid.
>
>I beg to differ.  I don't wish to endorse any bills, either explicitly
>or implicitly, as long as they contain major flaws.  If amending the
>bills before we endorse them is necessary, then we need to communicate
>that to the sponsors.  After they amend the bills to make them
>acceptable, then we can endorse them, if we feel we should and must.
>
> > These are the things I wanted to say on Thursday before debate was shut
> > down.
>
>Say them at the next meeting, if you wish, or the one after that.  At
>least we will have had two or four weeks to think about what we are
>doing before acting.  What's the rush anyway?  TennCare reform is still
>in the court system and *nothing* is going to happen with the state
>budget before that is decided.  We'll be lucky if we have any kind of
>state budget, with or without raises, before the end of June.
>
>Again, I'll be happy to discuss the merits of these bills and any
>associated motions at an appropriate time.  The last Faculty Senate
>meeting, with one day's notice, was *not* an appropriate time.  The
>majority of my Senate colleagues agreed.  Move to take the motion off
>the table as you see fit, and if our colleagues concur, then we'll have
>at it.  No misdirection required.  See you (checks watch) tomorrow, just
>barely ;)
>
>Joe Dumas
>
>--
>"One man with courage is a majority." -- Thomas Jefferson