Skip to content Skip to main navigation Report an accessibility issue

UTK Faculty Senate Minutes, 1977-78

October 3, 1977

October 31, 1977

January 16, 1978

February 13, 1978

April 10, 1978

May 8, 1978

June 5, 1978

July 10, 1978


Faculty Senate


October 3, 1977

Frank Leuthold, President, called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.

Senators absent: Armistead, Bauer, Beach, Bowen, Bunting, DeLong, Edwards, Hicks, Jones, Maus, Mitchell, Ostermeier, Rubeiz, Van de Vate

New Senators were introduced and welcomed by Pauline Bayne. Several announcements followed. John Langley, head of the Parking and Traffic Authority, announced a Pedestrian Awareness Week for October 3 through 7, an attempt to make everyone more aware of safe driving and safe pedestrian habits. Nancy Ann Min emphasized the importance of this safety campaign from the student point of view. David Fox, chairperson of the Rhodes and Foreign Scholarships Committee, indicated the October 27 deadline for applications for Rhodes and Fulbright-Hayes awards. Applications are available at the Division of International Education, 205 Alumni Hall.

The Graduate Council actions of May 26 were approved at the July 11 Senate meeting, but the minutes of the Council had not been received by senators until after July 11. LeRoy Graf brought this problem to the attention of the Senate. Parliamentarian, Carl Pierce, ruled that the report of the Graduate Council had not been received appropriately. The ruling was appealed by David Fox, and the chair ruled that the Senate’s action had not been legal. He advised that a motion to consider the May 26 actions of the Graduate Council be taken up at the time of the Graduate Council report later in this meeting. The minutes of the July 11, 1977 Senate meeting were approved as distributed.


Reports of August 8 and September 19 meetings had been distributed prior to the meeting; there were no questions from the floor. Two corrections were made: the Committee on Committees will make new nominations for committee positions for vacancies that have occurred since the election of committee members in May; Geraldine Gesell has not left the university but is on a one-year leave.


Frank Leuthold read the following recommendations: Mac Gray to serve as the retired member of the Fringe Benefits committee; Albert Auxier to serve on the Fringe Benefits committee; Warner Granade, new senator from the Library, to serve on the Research Council. Three positions remain unfilled; recommendations will be made when new senators are appointed. The Senate voted to accept the recommendations of the committee.


Prior to presentation of the report, a letter from Richard Fish, president of the Graduate Student Council, was distributed to senators; it asked that the Senate delay action on the Research Council proposal.

A policy which prohibits acceptance of grants for classified research was endorsed by the Research Council at its summer meeting and brought to the Senate by Gordon Sherman. The proposal, as distributed to all Senators, was amended by Mr. Sherman to read, “Exceptions to this policy can be made only with prior approval of the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor for Graduate Studies and Research.” Mr. Sherman indicated that this was not an anti-military policy. Mainly, it is the matter of research where the results are to be withheld which is of concern. Such a situation is contrary to the information aims of a university.

Carl Thomas reported the results of a questionnaire to seven universities asking their policies on this matter. Five had written policies, of which three prohibited and two required prior approval for classified research. Two universities had unwritten policies but tended to prefer not to have classified research occur on their campuses.

Jack Reese moved that the issues be remanded to the Research Council for further discussion and to receive comments at an open meeting. The motion was seconded and followed by considerable discussion. Pete Pasqua indicated that the proposal would restrict the activities of the faculty too greatly and several items in it were unclear. John Snider commented on the magnitude of the problem for Engineering where the majority of the research is of a contract nature. Bill Dunnill of UTSI mentioned the close ties with the Arnold Engineering Development Center of the U.S. Air Force. He stated that the Space Institute faculty felt strongly against the proposed policy. Evans Roth maintained that the main import of the policy statement would be to require an extra step of approval. Charles Reynolds suggested some revisions of the policy. James Tillman spoke of the dissertations which resulted from a $700,000 classified research project in Engineering several years ago. The motion to remand the policy statement back to the Research Council was passed by the Senate.


The minutes of the May 26 meeting had not been officially approved at the July 11 meeting. The main issues discussed at that meeting concerned changes in procedure for approval to direct dissertation research. Questions on these procedures were discussed. The fact that new senators have not had access to these minutes was raised. The Parliamentarian ruled that since one-third of the senators were new and had not received copies of the minutes, a two-thirds vote would be required in order to consider the Graduate Council report. The motion to consider did not carry. The minutes of the Graduate Council for May 26, 1977 will be distributed to all senators before the October 31 meeting of the Faculty Senate.

Evans Roth reported on the July 14 meeting of the Graduate Council. The Council is at the midpoint in reviewing all doctoral programs. A summary of the Agricultural Engineering review is given in the minutes; a fuller presentation is available from the Graduate Office. Course and curricular changes are also given in the minutes. A question concerning a course title was raised; the Psychology and Educational Psychology and Guidance departments have agreed that the course title “Seminar in Feministic Psychology” should be changed to “Seminar in Bias-Free Counseling”. An amendment motion, that the course but not the title be approved, was passed. Then the actions of the Graduate Council of July 14 were confirmed by the Senate.

Frank Leuthold reminded the Senate of the annual faculty meeting on October 4 at 3:30 p.m. in the Shiloh Room in which Chancellor Reese and Frank Leuthold would address the faculty.

The Senate adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

Submitted by Pauline Bayne, Secretary to the Senate


Faculty Senate


October 31, 1977

Frank Leuthold, President, called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.

Senators absent: Adamson, Beach, Blanshei, Bratton, G., Bunting, Cole, DeLong, Fox, Hart, Peccolo, Spiva, Sullivan, Townsend, Wachter, Woodruff.

The minutes of the October 1, 1977 meeting were approved as distributed.


Pauline Bayne announced the names of three new senators: M. C. Whiteside is replacing Geraldine Gesell for one year; Frank Collins is a one-year replacement for Bill Dunnill; Ron Kohl is the replacement for Kenneth Templemeyer.

She also stated that any committee chairperson wishing to use the Faculty Senate Office for committee meetings should call her at 3474 to make arrangements.


The report of the October 17 Executive Committee meeting had been distributed prior to this meeting. In response to a question from the floor, Frank Leuthold stated that the Presidential Councilors will be asked to report to the Senate as well as to the Executive Committee. Their first report will be scheduled for the second meeting of winter quarter, February 13. Mr. Leuthold pointed out that the Research Council has established a committee (Jim Spencer, chairperson, Mac Simpson, Charles Reynolds, Bob Woodruff, and Jack Humphreys) to ascertain the feelings and respond on a departmental or college basis to the classified research proposal. He also noted their committee work rule which states that any item going to the Senate must be approved with a quorum present at the meeting. Mr. Leuthold reported that copies of the University By-Laws would be distributed in January as requested by the Executive Committee. In response to a question concerning the meaning of “release of faculty salary information” in item 6, Mr. Leuthold explained that it means making individual salary data available to faculty. Such information is already public, but it is not easily available.


David Ostermeier, chairperson, reported on the work of the committee to date. The committee recognizes its duty to ask the Administration to remember that fringe benefits are important and a high priority for faculty and staff. The committee this year is working in the following areas: 1) insurance improvements possibly to include group home or car policies, supplemental life insurance, larger amounts for major medical protection; 2) ways to increase communication among faculty and between the Faculty Senate and faculty members, possibly through a faculty newsletter; and, 3) grievance procedures. Frank Leuthold responded to a question by Bernard Silverstein concerning the attempt to get TIAA retirement contributions treated as tax-sheltered income by the state legislature. Mr. Leuthold stated that the bill has been pre-filed for the next session and seems to have a better chance of passing this year. He suggested that Senators go back to their respective faculties and urge them to communicate with their legislators concerning this issue. He also announced that this fall the medical and life insurance programs are being bid separately at the state level so the policies may be held by separate companies after January 1, 1978.


Chairperson Charles Reynolds reported that the committee was investigating the topic of credit for extra-institutional learning. He invited any member of the Senate or faculty who has information, especially studies that have been done, to route that information to the committee for consideration. He mentioned a program at UT Chattanooga where various proficiency examinations based on life experience learning are made available through a central information scheme and central director. The program is attracting adult students back to the university.


Ralph Norman, chairperson, presented the report of the Council.

The October 4 meeting was concerned mainly with curricular changes requested by several colleges. The Council approved a return to the three-hour format in the Departments of Germanic and Slavic Languages and Romance Languages. These departments will offer both three-hour and four-hour schedules for the next year. Other revisions recommended concern the Asian Studies curriculum and proposals from the Colleges of Agriculture and Education.

The College of Education proposed new procedural steps to insure more reliable and complete assessment in the screening process for admission to teacher education programs. Five basic kinds of data would be collected: speech-and hearing test, grade point average, assessment of social and emotional development through written examination, checking of student conduct records, and evaluation of previous field experience.

Ralph Norman also noted that various subcommittees would be reporting to the Council at the next two meetings. The Advising Committee will report on the survey of departmental plans for implementation of mandatory advising; the Testing and Grading Committee will report on possible improvements in testing; the ad hoc Committee on the General Curriculum will give a program at the November 10 faculty luncheon.

Because of considerable discussion of the College of Education proposal, a request was made for separate voting on the actions of the Council. The motion to approve all actions of the Council except those regarding the College of Education was carried. Discussion from the floor centered around standards of normalcy for social and emotional development and the potentially undue influence of student conduct records on an individual’s education and career. Dale Doak, Associate Dean of the College of Education, responded that the written test gives a structured way to look at social-emotional well being. Certain scores might result in further evaluation but not automatic prevention of candidacy. He stated that student conduct records would help the faculty to make an informed decision. After further discussion, the College of Education proposal was accepted.


Evans Roth, chairperson, reported for the Council. The minutes for the May 26 meeting had been distributed two weeks prior to this meeting. These minutes cover three areas: course and curriculum changes, action on English as a foreign language proficiency examinations, and approval for directing doctoral research. Mr. Roth gave some historical background or. the Council’s consideration of approval for directing doctoral research. The final recommendation involves several changes in procedure: 1) a required vote of the regular department faculty recommending the person for approval; 2) at least one letter of support from another faculty member who is already approved for directing doctoral research; and 3) written support to the individual from at least two graduate students. Initial approval will be for a five-year period. After five years, full approval may be given by the Vice Chancellor for Graduate Studies and Research. The actions of the Graduate Council were approved by the Senate.


Chancellor Jack Reese reported to the Senate on the THEC budget recommendations for 1978-79. When asked how the faculty can exert influence to benefit higher education, he recommended that the Senate Legislative Committee continue its efforts with the Knox County Legislative Delegation and send appropriate communications to the Governor and his administration. Individual faculty members could attend the Saturday open forums of the Knox County Legislative Delegation or write a letter to urge their legislator to support the budget when released by the Governor.


Garrett Briggs, on behalf of the College of Liberal Arts Committee on Advising, described some of the difficulties his college is encountering with implementation of mandatory advising plan. He asked the UG Council Committee on Advising to consider a three quarter program rather than the one quarter limitation, especially in the first year of operation. A review might be held at the end of the first quarter of operation. He suggested that other colleges pass on their comments to the Committee on Advising.

The Senate was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Faculty Senate


January 16, 1978

Frank Leuthold, President, called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m.

Senators absent: Adamson, Blank, Blanshei, Bratton, Culberson, DeLong, Edwards, Fussell, Gaertner, Hart,, Heilman, Hileman, Humphreys, Jones, Joshi, Kant, Kennedy, Mathews, Maus, Mitchell, Murphy, Patton, Van de Vate, Wachter, Wagner, Woodruff.


Pauline Bayne introduced Frances Andrew, the new Senator from the College of Home Economics who is replacing Betty Beach.

On behalf of the Nominating Committee, she asked that all suggestions for possible candidates for the elected officers of the Senate be sent to LeRoy Graf, chairperson of that committee.


The minutes of the October 31, 1977 meeting were approved as distributed.


Report of the November 14 meeting.

Frank Leuthold commented on item 3, the ruling on the status of Garrett Briggs as a Senator since he now has an administrative appointment on an interim basis. The President ruled and the Parliamentarian concurred that because of the temporary appointment he may continue in his term as a faculty Senator according to their interpretation of the Senate By-Laws.

Report of the December 5 meeting.

In response to a question on item 6, Mr. Leuthold explained that the salary information requested would not identify any individual but provide average salary by rank along with average time in rank. The Office of Academic Affairs has agreed to supply this information.

Item 3. The State’s bids for insurance have gone to Blue Cross for the medical package and to Provident for the life insurance coverage. New forms should be available in the Staff Insurance Office.


Mary Richards, chairperson, reported on current activities of the committee:

1) Final formulation of a report on the overhead recovery and retention rates at UT by Roland Bagby and Dudley Dewhirst. The conclusion was that UT has one of the lowest overhead retention rates in the Southeast. The report recommends the lowering of the recovery rate and the increasing of the retention rate. The administration was able to use figures in the report in the THEC budget presentation. The THEC approved an increased allowance for overhead retention to a rate of 25% and also gave an increased allowance for special research, one and one-half to two million dollars.

2) Work with the Task Force on Financial Resources, responding to their projections and providing them with a list of resource needs that might have been overlooked by the departmental and college reports.

3) Review of the THEC formula to suggest modifications.

4) New work of the committee will include review of the cost study and the faculty attitude survey.



The report was given by Garrett Briggs, chairperson of the committee. The committee is charged to work with the administration to identify critical needs of the University and to try to influence legislators to support higher education. Another goal of the committee is to attend Saturday sessions of the Knox County Legislative Delegation. Mr. Briggs encouraged Senators to attend these meetings in order to support, to speak against, or to initiate legislation and to get to know the local legislators. The annual breakfast sponsored by the Faculty Senate Legislative Committee for the Knox County legislators, UT administrators and students, will be held on February 4 with the regular meeting to follow in the Crest Room at approximately 10:00 a.m.


The report of the Undergraduate Council’s Committee on Advising was in the hands of all Senators prior to the meeting.

LeRoy Graf, chairperson of the committee, reported that two colleges had tested systems of mandatory advising during the fall quarter, demonstrating the feasibility of faculty-student contact for the purpose of advising.

The committee report sets out minimum requirements to be implemented on a campus-wide basis. The student body will be divided into three segments or “advising units”; each quarter (fall, winter, spring) one unit will be required to see advisors during the four weeks prior to pre-registration week in order to be allowed to pre-register. In this way advising will be spread over three quarters instead of one and record keeping will be simplified. The control mechanism will be a card obtained from the advisor which permits the student to be admitted to pre-registration. No university form will be required as a record of the advising session, although colleges may implement their own forms. The colleges will decide whether conferences should be tied into specific course selection or long-term program and goals. Advisor training is an important concern, and the separate colleges will make their own plans for such training. Faculty effort spent in advising is to be evaluated as part of the promotion and tenure process. Positive points of the new advising program are flexibility and the establishment of a standing committee of the Undergraduate Council to watch over advising activities.

The Academic Council, as a representative body of UT students, voted unanimously to support this new plan for implementation of a mandatory advising system. The President of the Faculty Senate has received a letter expressing this support. Discussion centered around the reasons for prohibiting advising conferences during pre-registration week, the need for student response after the first quarter and first year of this advising system, the fall 1978 implementation date, the need for accurate lists of advisors and fair distribution of advisees, the need for faculty training in spring and fall of this year, and the mechanics of implementation.

Charles Reynolds proposed an amendment, “that the conference will normally be held prior to the week of pre-registration,” but it was defeated. The report of the committee, coming as a motion made and seconded by the committee, was passed by the Senate.


Ralph Norman, chairperson, reported on actions of the Council and reports of its standing committees at the November 8 and December 6 meetings.

1) The Statistics Committee has reported on the number and variety of statistics courses offered by various departments. They have done no evaluation of overlapping course offerings. The report was received by the Council but no action was taken. It would be desirable to move now from the listing and description of courses to evaluation and recommendations.

2) The Testing and Grading Committee has recommended no change in policy on several issues: plus and minus grading for undergraduates and repetition of courses. Clearly there must be further discussion of these issues on all levels within the University concerning the grade inflation alternatives period, etc.

3) Howard Aldmon has proposed a plan for retention of academically marginal students through intensive tutorial work and has applied for a grant to fund the project.

4) Actions of the Council included approval to waiver retention rules for academically marginal students if the Aldmon project is funded, approval of variable titles for courses to be specified in student records, and minor course revisions as listed in the Council’s minutes.

The actions of the Undergraduate Council were approved by the Senate.


Evans Roth, chairperson of the Graduate Council, requested that the Senate hear the report of the December 8 meeting as well as the two listed on the agenda since members had received minutes of the December meeting well in advance of this Senate meeting. The Senate voted by the required 2/3 vote to consider this report.

Mr. Evans outlined the issues considered at each meeting:

October 20 meeting was concerned with definition of the normal load for graduate students at 10 hours and with two appeals by assistant professors for approval to undertake PhD degrees. Their appeals were denied but a committee is studying the matter.

November 10 meeting began consideration of a readmission policy, called attention to the Senate’s approval of new procedures for approval for supervision of doctoral research (the procedure’s operation will be reviewed in March), and considered one appeal. Discussion of modification of the appeal process will be taken up at the January 26 meeting, 3 p.m., Austin Peay Building, Conference room of the Psychology Department. Policy and procedures for dismissal and termination will also be considered.

December 8 meeting included course changes and two major discussions. There were reports of doctoral review committees for Business Administration and Educational Administration and Supervision. At the request of the Graduate Student Council a committee will consider designation in the Graduate Catalog of the quarter in which courses are normally taught; the committee will report in March. The Graduate Council has been enlarged by a representative from the College of Nursing and the appointment of five members rather than three by the Vice Chancellor for Graduate Studies and Research. The actions of the Graduate Council were confirmed by the Senate.



Harry Rutledge, chairperson, made an oral report on the committee’s activities. The committee is in the process of visiting the Main Library after having visited all of the branch libraries last spring. The committee would welcome input from Senators and faculty members as to problems that it should investigate. The committee advises the Director of the Library as representatives of the faculty and generally approves the annual departmental budget allocations for library materials. Pauline Bayne pointed out that the committee is not charged by the Faculty Senate By-Laws to approve the departmental allocations, and that this action is not binding upon the activities of the Library. Walter Herndon described the current attempt to alleviate the space problems of the Science-Engineering Library through consideration of space in Alumni Gym and further space in Dabney Hall. Study of the feasibility of various alternatives is now under way. He also mentioned the current study of the desirability of an autonomous Law Library.

The Senate meeting adjourned at 5:03 p.m.

Faculty Senate


February 13, 1978

Frank Leuthold, President, called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Senators absent: Armistead, Bratton, E., Bratton, G., Bunting, Cole, DeLong, Edwards, Forrester, Gaertner, Granger, Hart, Heilman, Hileman, Johnston, Keller, Kennedy, Kohl, Martella, Maus, Melton, Murphree, Nooe, Oliver, Peccolo, Posey, Sherman, Stollar, Tillman.


The following corrections to the minutes for January 16, 1978 were made by the Secretary: 1) in the advising report, page 3, the first full paragraph should begin “In order to allow advising sessions to occur during pre-registration week, Charles Reynolds proposed an amendment” …, and 2) in the Graduate Council report for October 20 replace “definition of the normal load for graduate students at 10 hours” with “definition of the minimum full-time registration for graduate students at 9 or 10 hours.” The minutes were approved as distributed and corrected.


Frank Leuthold highlighted several points from the January 30 meeting. Item 3: He hopes that the Research Council subcommittee on classified research will seriously solicit comments from the various colleges. Item 4: In regard to review of the entire Faculty Handbook draft, the Executive Committee will decide if other committees need to be involved at this point. The Senate will receive copies thirty days in advance of any vote. Item 7: The Senate needs to make a final resolution of the choice between our present quarter system or a quarter system which would include an “alternatives period”. A subcommittee consisting of Lida Barrett and Russell French was created to bring this question with its background material before the Senate. Item 8: Russell French has been endorsed to begin a preliminary investigation of a possible goal of the Senate, to become involved in an instructional improvement plan or program.


Lida Barrett presented the report of the subcommittee, reviewing previous actions of the Senate on the Academic calendar. The Lusby committee (February 24, 1974) recommended that a Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Calendar be established to formulate an “early start” calendar system and that the calendar include a “Culmination Period”. The recommended implementation date was Fall, 1976. Upon the May, 1976 report of the Ad Hoc University Calendar Committee, chaired by Robert Kirk, the Senate approved a 10-week summer term and a quarter system with a minimum of 600 minutes per credit hour. The Senate defeated the third motion by one vote, “that the University calendar not include an alternatives period for each term”. The objective of this subcommittee is to achieve Senate reaction to a positively-stated motion.

Discussion from the floor pointed out that the work of the Becker committee which occurred from 1974-1976, had been omitted from this report. A summary of the findings of that committee shall be sent to all senators before the next meeting. Bill Becker, Stan Lusby, Bob Kirk, and other members of these previous committees shall be invited to attend the next meeting when the Senate will vote on the following motion:

Be it moved that a Quarter Calendar approximately conforming to the present Quarter Calendar be established but to include the following:

1. approximately 9 weeks of regularly scheduled classes (providing for 28, 50-minute sessions for a 3 credit hour course, and comparable classroom periods for 4-hour and 5-hour, etc. courses)

2. followed by a “Study Period” of one day preceding

3. a concluding “Alternatives Period” of four days during which there would be one two-hour period to be used by each class and instructor in a manner best suited to realize the educational objectives of the course.



On March 9 the AAUP and Faculty Senate will sponsor a session on faculty grievance procedures at a noon meeting. Chancellor Reese, Frank Leuthold, and two faculty members will make presentations on the topic.

The February 4 Legislative breakfast was a well attended session. Chancellor Reese and Frank Leuthold both made presentations to the legislators.

Medical insurance update: 1) the Insurance Office will continue to use the Provident forms until Blue Cross forms can be revised for our use, 2) insurance cards will be sent out as soon as the State of Tennessee notifies the companies of the exact changes, 3) the separate major medical coverage stayed with Provident.

LeRoy Graf reminded the senate that the choice of future officers rests in the hands of five people on the nominating committee: Oran Culberson, Carl Pierce, Imogene Posey, Kermit Blank, and the chairperson LeRoy Graf. Suggestions from senators are very important. Please make your input to any one of these five people.


The report of the committee was approved. Senators Andrews, Kohl, Granade, Whiteside, Johnston, and Collins were placed on committees for the remainder of the year. Sandra Bell was replaced on the Executive Committee by Imogene Posey and on the Nominating Committee by Kermit Blank.


David Ostermeier presented information on the planning for a pre-retirement program for academic staff. The Personnel Office would like input from the faculty on their needs in such a program. The fact sheet and questionnaire may be returned to David Ostermeier immediately after the meeting or to his campus address.


The report of the January 17 meeting was presented by Clark Roberts. Curricular changes included minor revisions in the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Agriculture. The College of Architecture has proposed a minimum grade point average for their students; this proposal was given to the Committee on Degrees and Programs for a report to the Council. Catalog copy appears for the previously approved requirements for admission to teacher education in the College of Education. The actions of the Council were approved by the Senate.


Margaret Perry reported on the Graduate Council’s January 12 meeting. There were curricular changes from two colleges, Business Administration and Liberal Arts. According to Ms. Perry many of the units are bringing to the Council descriptive titles for topics courses and seminar courses, a procedure to get those titles on student transcripts. Preliminary discussion began on a revised appeal process for students, but no action was taken. The other action was to approve a readmission policy for students returning to the university after five quarters. The procedure will be to collect the same kinds of information that is collected on students at entrance, and the department will have the opportunity to review these materials again. Transcripts will be required if the student has been at another school in the interim. The actions of the Graduate Council were confirmed by the Senate.



Jayant Joshi made this report to the Senate and presented three resolutions which will be distributed to all senators and voted upon at the next meeting. The building was occupied in June 1977 and since that time faculty and students have been subjected to constant inconveniences. Problems that could be corrected now include: leaky faucets, unreliable hot and cold water, poor acoustics in lecture rooms, no screens for audio-visual presentations, poor temperature control, poor elevator operation, ice cubes instead of crushed ice for laboratory experiments, lack of power outlets, lack of suspended ceiling, no directories, and vibrations in laboratory floors. Some problems are the result of poor design and should not have been accepted at the design stage: little desk space for students in the laboratories, poor location of rest rooms, permanently sealed windows, no drains in the laboratory emergency showers. Mr. Joshi presented three resolutions to the Senate: that this contractor not be considered again by the University, that there be an investigation of the acceptance of the building, and that no building be accepted in the future until it is approved by the occupants.

Mr. Ebersole reported on behalf of the Chancellor that Dr. Johnson, the architect at the system level, is aware of the problems and is giving them his attention. Frank Leuthold asked that there be administrative response to this problem when it comes up for discussion and vote at the next meeting. It was suggested that development of guidelines for facilities planning might be a project for the Educational Facilities Committee.


Forrest Lacey presented some background information to the Senate. The Faculty Councilors to the President are composed of the heads of the governing units of the five campuses as ex officio members, one to four members of the faculty of each campus, one representative from public service and two from the Institute of Agriculture. The members are named by President Boling from recommendations of the chancellors. Meetings last from half to a full day and are rotated among the various campuses. There is an equivalent meeting with student councilors. The President and system officers are in attendance at these meetings. The agenda is derived from items suggested by the Councilors and a small presentation of the item is made by the faculty member who suggested it.

Homer Swingle reported on a discussion item from the Chattanooga meeting. Advising of students was considered an important activity, but concerns were expressed about the competition for faculty time and the need for adequate rewards for this activity.

John Morrow summarized some topics from the first meeting of the Presidential Councilors. One of the questions posed was the use of MBO with the resulting realization that it is not used in a uniform fashion by any means. President Boling expressed his concept of management by objectives in a specific way: meeting at the beginning of the year to set specific goals for the individual faculty member and then working toward achievement of those goals. Boling was supportive of a general education requirement, a general curriculum for the freshman and sophomore years, but could promise no special allocation of funds. Morrow also reported that a 12-hour faculty teaching load is being sought for all campuses.

Frank Leuthold addressed the topic of selection procedures for chancellors and vice presidents. Boling stated that there were no written procedures for selection but that the process for chancellors is different than the process for “staff” vice presidents. The selection of chancellors should provide for student and faculty participation on advisory committees. The appointment of vice presidents will not always require consultation of students or faculty; sometimes these appointments are essentially promotions. Boling stated that the appointment of vice presidents for the Center for Health Sciences and Agriculture would be more akin to selection of chancellors with consultation of the constituents in each group.

Judy Kuipers made comments on three topics. 1) What are the dynamics for constructive faculty feedback to people who make critical decisions that affect us all? President Boling demonstrated greater openness on affirmative action questions than he had in previous sessions. Perhaps the UTK faculty is having some impact by its continual feedback and commitment to affirmative action on this campus. 2) The quality of graduate student teaching was another topic of discussion. Several UTK departments are preparing these graduate students very thoroughly and one department has a grant to do this. President Boling and his staff were very supportive of these kinds of efforts. 3) The role of the evening school and the need for long-range plans for the alternative student are issues that need much more discussion. President Boling and his staff need to be sensitized to these problems. On these issues and others we need to be assertive, to offer suggestions, and to follow through to see that necessary issues get consideration.

Questions and discussion resulted in the several observations about meetings of the Presidential Councilors. In the eight years of these meetings there has been a definite change from the President and his staff doing most of the talking to a situation where the President does more listening. More often there is an exchange of viewpoints than simply answers to questions. There seems to be more participation by representatives from the other campuses than there was in the early meetings. However, topics still are not covered in enough depth and there is still little more than an exchange of information and general impressions. The role of this group is not to make decisions but to participate in an interchange of ideas on problems and issues, to be involved in an educating process through two-way communication.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Faculty Senate


April 10, 1978

Frank Leuthold, President, called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.

Senators absent: Armistead, Bauer, Collins, Culberson, DeLong, Edwards, Granger, Hart, Hicks, Hileman, Martella, Maus, Murphree, Nooe, Oliver, Schmudde, Stollar, Van de Vate, Wallace, Whiteside, Yeomans, Ziegler.


LeRoy Graf noted that the Presidential Councilors have been meeting for more than three years. The correct length of time is eight years, since the fall of 1970. The minutes were approved as corrected.


Secretary, Pauline Bayne, asked that all senators return their committee preference polls and that committee chairpersons submit annual reports by May 8.


Reports of the February 27 and March 27 meetings had been distributed to all Senators prior to this meeting. There were no questions on the reports. The election of members of the Committee on Committees was held next, and the results will be announced at the next Senate meeting.


LeRoy Graf, chairperson, announced the slate of candidates nominated by the committee. The two candidates for President-Elect are Carl Pierce (Law) and Mary Richards (Liberal Arts). University Councilor candidates include Harvey Carruth (Liberal Arts), Donald Dessart (Liberal Arts and Education), Luther Keller (Agriculture), John Ray (Education), Charles Reynolds (Liberal Arts), and George Spiva (Business Administration). The slate was accepted by the Senate and no nominations were made from the floor. Mail ballots will be sent to Senators within the month. Results of the election will be announced on May 8.


LeRoy Graf reported on the procedures which have been designed to put the advising program into operation. The full text of this report is appended to these minutes on page 5. The Advising Committee strongly urges all colleges to take action this spring to arrange for the training of advisors.


Walter Herndon reported on the affirmative action plan and the results of its operation to date. Briefly, the plan consists of identification of vacancies, getting the vacancies known through a request to search, development of an adequate pool of qualified candidates including specific affirmative acts to find qualified minority candidates, evaluation of the pool, further screening of candidates, inviting for interviews, evaluation of the final candidates, extension of offers, and a report of all actions in the procedure. This set of procedures is designed to ensure affirmative action in our hiring of new faculty and staff at UTK. The results of all of this activity during the last six months are especially disappointing. We are not recruiting faculty in proportion to the numbers of blacks and women in the student population. We had an Increase of 19 percent in the black student population last fall but a practically stable black faculty population. We have a nice plan, but it is not working.


Gordon Sherman presented an overview of this project. Original interest was shown in the subject about three and one-half years ago when the committee of the Research Council was established to study research centers on campus and to make recommendations to the administration. The committee was chaired by Lloyd Seatz. Committee members interviewed the directors of the ten research centers identified, studied reports of the centers, etc. The report of the subcommittee was discussed and the three recommendations were endorsed by the Research Council. The important recommendation calls for the Research Council to evaluate all proposals for new center formation and to evaluate all existing centers on a systematic schedule. This report, coming as a motion from the Research Council, was passed by the Senate.



David Ostermeier, committee chairperson, brought to the Senate a resolution for establishing a faculty newsletter. The committee felt that the lack of communication between the Senate and the faculty-at-large and between the faculty members themselves pointed toward the need for a better means of communication than we presently have. The resolution does not give implementation details but asks first for Senate approval of the idea. Discussion revealed concern for cost, evidence of real need, and the question of whether a newsletter would solve the communication problem. The Senate approved the report, therefore, the committee will pursue the idea of a faculty newsletter and come back to the Senate at a later date with a specific proposal.


Russell French, for the subcommittee of the Executive Committee, outlined the issue of clarification of the Senate’s stand on the “Alternatives Period” and presented appropriate background information. The motion presented by the subcommittee last time asked that “the present Quarter Calendar be established to include the following:

  1. approximately 9 weeks of regularly scheduled classes (providing for 28, 50-minute sessions for a 3-credit-hour course, and comparable classroom periods for 4-hour and 5-hour, etc. courses)
  2. followed by a “Study Period” of one day preceding
  3. a concluding “Alternatives Period of four days during which there would be one two-hour period to be used by each class and instructor in a manner best suited to realize the educational objectives of the course.”

French reported some important considerations that are required to make the alternatives period work. In 1974, this arrangement was considered feasible provided that departmental examinations are not included in the alternatives period. It is still considered feasible by Registrar, Bob Cochran, with the exclusion of departmental exams. The summer quarter does not fit into this plan because of its two terms and due to the constraints of starting and ending dates. Another complicating factor is the study day. It is Bob Cochran’s opinion that a one-day study period may not be possible, but the first half day could be left open. In the 1976 actions of the Senate, a minimum of 500 minutes per credit hour were required for each quarter. This minimum cannot be maintained with an alternatives period. If the two-hour block within the alternative period is counted, the minimum would generally be met. There might be some variance from year to year. The proposal actually calls for re-grouping of the last four days of each quarter to allow a culmination period of two hours for each class.

Maxwell Springer amended the original motion to read “10 weeks of regularly scheduled classes rather than 9.” Bob Cochran stated that three equal 10-week quarters would not be feasible without splitting winter quarter with the Christmas break or making summer quarter have a late start and late end. The amendment failed to pass the Senate.

Several comments were made to emphasize the fact that an alternatives period is part of the scheduled class contact. There is not an alternative to dismiss classes. Such erosion is taking place right now. It may actually help to avoid such erosion if a block of time is available to wrap up a course in the best possible way.

The due date for grades would not be changed relative to the end of the quarter. Classes which meet normally for a 2-hour block would be assigned two blocks in the alternatives period. There would be no guarantee as to when the alternative period for a course may meet. It would be a randomly assigned block of time. This might present a problem for students and faculty alike.

Carl Pierce proposed an amendment, “that departmental exams shall not be permitted during the alternatives period.” The amendment was passed. He also amended the motion to delete item 2, “followed by a study period of one day preceding.” This amendment was approved by the Senate.

The motion to include a four-day alternatives period in the present Quarter Calendar was passed by the Senate with 48 yes votes to 21 no votes.


Ralph Norman reported on the February 14 meeting of the Undergraduate Council. One major curricular change is in the rule for admission to undergraduate programs for students whose first language is not English. Such a student would be exempted from taking the UTK English Proficiency Test and from presenting a TOEFL score of 525 provided the student has satisfied all requirements for freshman composition with a grade of “C” or better at a college or university in the United States which is accredited by a regional association. The other proposal from the Committee on Student English concerns scoring and credit details for placement tests.

Most of the curricular changes made at this meeting were the result of departments making changes in order to be consistent with the English Department’s 3-hour format for the freshman year. In the College of Business, both personnel and industrial management courses will now become simple “management” courses. There is no major economic impact resulting from any of these changes. The actions of the Undergraduate Council were accepted by the Senate.


Evans Roth presented the report on the February 9 meeting. The main activities of the meeting were the reports on two reviews of doctoral programs, Germanic Language and Literature and Health Education. The German program was reviewed because of the general review procedure and at the request of the THEC as a low-producing doctoral program. The actions of the Council were confirmed by the Senate.


Roland Bagby explained that this matter had been brought to the Senate as a “court of last appeal.” Letters and appeals had gone to many individuals and through many channels but had not met with satisfactory response. The occupants of the building have no assurance that faults will be corrected. Chancellor Reese distributed a letter to members of the Senate which explained the process of programming a building and which responded to each item that had been identified as a problem in the building. The letter indicates that action will occur on many of the problems. Dr. Joe Johnson, who has the administrative responsibility for capital outlay on statewide programs, discussed the many compromises that are involved in every building program. Some specific suggestions and reactions surfaced during the discussion: the administration might ask occupants of recent buildings for their reactions before new buildings are begun; sophisticated buildings such as the Walters Life Sciences Building definitely need well-trained maintenance engineers to work on problems as they occur; all program committees will be chaired by the Vice Chancellor for Administration in order to achieve full communication between those who plan, construct, and occupy a building. Carl Pierce moved that this motion be postponed indefinitely. It was seconded and passed by the Senate.

The Senate adjourned at 5:40 p.m.

Distributed by Pauline S. Bayne,

Secretary to the Faculty Senate, 974-3474

Faculty Senate


May 8. 1978

Frank Leuthold, President, called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m.

Members absent: Adamson, Bauer, Bowen, Bratton, E., Briggs, Cole, Collins, Culberson, DeLong, Edwards, Fussell, Gaertner, Hart, Hicks, Hileman, Kennedy, Kohl, Martella, Maus, Peccolo, Ramer, Sewell, Sinkankas, Springer, Spiva, Sullivan, Thomforde, Tillman, Van de Vate, Wagner, Whiteside, Zeigler.


In the discussion of the alternatives period, the reference to a 2-hour block of time actually refers to two 50-minute periods. A point of further information is that the scheduling of alternative periods will not be totally random. The schedule will be systemized so that the double period will be during the same general time of day as the original period.

The minutes were approved with this clarification.


Frank Leuthold made a correction to the Beacon article on the alternatives period. It was clearly stated at the last meeting that cancellation of class is not to be considered as an alternative during the alternatives period.

GSC President, Richard Fish, announced the GSC Forum on the afternoon of May 18. The topic of the open forum will be the Graduate Teaching Assistant and Quality in Education. Three of the four panelists include Dean Margaret Perry, Ohmer Milton, and George Kabalka. The meeting will take place in the Crest Room from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.


Items of interest from the regular meeting on April 24 were reported by Frank Leuthold:

1. A special meeting of the Senate has been called for June 5 to discuss and vote on approval of the Faculty Handbook.

2. The Library Committee has been asked by the Graduate Student Council to investigate policies on faculty loans and abuses of the loan privileges.

3. The Executive Committee nominated Pauline Bayne as Secretary to the Faculty Senate for 1978-79. The Senate confirmed that nomination.

4. The Fringe Benefit recommended the appointment of a committee to be in charge of the Faculty Newsletter.

5. The results of the Committee on Committees election appear in the report of the April 24 meeting. Both nominees from Liberal Arts will serve and a third representative will be appointed.

On April 6, 9, 17, 24 and May 1, 8 special meetings of the Executive Committee were held to review the draft of the Faculty Handbook. Frank Leuthold outlined the procedure followed. At the end of Winter Quarter, copies of the draft were given to the Executive Committee. Thirteen review committees were appointed, each chaired by a member of the Executive Committee. The review committees met during the first week of Spring Quarter to formulate interim or final reports. Many committees met several times and reported to the Executive Committee to get further input. There were two meetings between committees and the Chancellor. On May 15 copies of the revised Faculty Handbook should be delivered to all Senators. The Handbook will be considered and voted upon by the Senate on June 5. There will be an opportunity for any Senator to meet with Frank Leuthold or other members of the Senate Executive Committee on May 29. This will be a chance for input, questions, suggestions, or clarifications. Leuthold will welcome written comments at any time. Please call Frank Leuthold or Pauline Bayne to set up an appointment time for Monday, May 29.

Chancellor Reese stated that he hopes for Senate approval on June 5 so that the Board of Trustees can consider it on June 16. If the Senate does not approve the document, it will not be presented to the Board until their fall meeting. There are two advantages to approval during June: 1) this Senate will be able to follow through on the Handbook and 2) it will be printed during the summer. Many chapters have undergone substantial redrafting, which is the result of more faculty input than ever before.


Luther Keller reviewed the proposed changes in the By-Laws. There will need to be a 2/3 affirmative vote of members present at the June 5 meeting to pass these proposed changes.


Kermit Blank reported on the one meeting of this committee. The committee has acted primarily as an information receiving group in the areas of the Tennessee Tomorrow campaign and alumni publications. He suggested two areas for possible future action by this committee: development of a formula to be used as Tennessee Tomorrow funds become available for use and continued emphasis on greater faculty involvement in the alumni publications.


David Fox reviewed the two main functions of the committee, to publicize the Rhodes and Fulbright-Hays Scholarships and to act as an on-campus screening or interview board for the Fulbright-Hays Scholarship. This year two candidates were interviewed for the Rhodes award and seven for the Fulbright- Hays. There were two finalists from UTK in the Fulbright-Hays and one winner, Mike Ledgerwood. The committee is working to increase student awareness of the availability of these scholarships. A great deal of emphasis will be placed in future interviews on the ability of the student to converse in the language of the country to which she/he is applying.


Walter Herndon, chairperson, reported on the three quarterly meetings of this committee. The committee has discussed and responded to the following issues: the pilot project in the College of Engineering on performance funding, student withdrawals and retention, quarter banking, the mini-term program which began in December of 1977 and operated much like an evening school program, re-entry of adult students, intercampus appointments, a class size survey, and new program proposals to THEC.


Clark Roberts, Secretary to the Undergraduate Council, presented the report. The reports of committees required no Senate action. The curricular changes consisted mainly of changes in concentrations and minors. The changes in Architecture and Communications reflect the new changes in English and updates in concentrations. In the College of Education there were drop-add revisions, a reorganization of concentrations, and new requirements in Special Education for admission to the program for teaching of the hearing impaired. Home Economics requested a change in option 5: Tourism, Food and Lodging Administration to reflect the increased emphasis on this field. The cooperative program will take 4 years and 2 quarters. In Liberal Arts there were general changes In credit hours and course contact. There is a correction on page 4327: “Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts” should read simply “Bachelor of Arts.” The changes in Nursing are due to the changes in the English requirements. The question whether Architecture electives require pre-requisites not provided for remains unanswered. The actions of the Council were approved by the Senate.


Evans Roth reported on the March 9 meeting. The College of Veterinary Medicine is in the final stage of authorizing DVM students to take up to 15 hours without going through normal request procedures. The Council received a committee report on a centralized listing of graduate courses to be taught the following year. No particular means was adopted to produce such a list, but the Council indicated support for such an action. There has been modification of the form for appointment of doctoral committees. There should not be a change in membership without the approval and signature of those involved in the change and a statement of reasons. To indicate the willingness to serve and knowledge of all members, the form requires the signature of all members of the committee. it is a totally new form. The curricular changes are self-evident in the minutes of the Graduate Council. The Actions of the Graduate Council were confirmed by the Senate.

The Senate adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

Submitted and distributed by

Pauline Bayne, Secretary to the Faculty Senate


Faculty Senate


Special Meeting, June 5, 1978

The meeting was called to order by President, Frank Leuthold, at 3:07 p.m.

Senators absent: Armistead, Bauer, Cole, Culberson, DeLong, Fussell, Gaertner, Granger, Haas, Hicks, Kohl, Martella, Maus, Melton, Murphy, Nooe, Oliver, Peccolo, Schmudde, Thomforde, Tillman, Wallace, Whiteside, Woodruff.


The following corrections were made to the May 8 minutes by Secretary, Pauline Bayne: on page 1, section 4, the committee referred to is the Fringe Benefits Committee; on page 3, Undergraduate Council, curricular changes were in “course content” not “contact.” The minutes were accepted as corrected.


There were no questions on the reports of the May 1, 8, and 22 meetings. Frank Leuthold reported that two other meetings on May 29 and June 2 had been held. All pertain to review of the proposed Faculty Handbook.


Russell French reported that the committee had met on May 24 and completed its recommendations at that time. The committee chairpersons are being informed of the recommendations and asked to call all proposed members to inform them of their proposed committee assignment.

The Committee on Committees recommends that the Faculty Affairs Committee be increased from nine to twelve members. This was a unanimous decision of the committee in light of the additional responsibilities that will be given to the Faculty Affairs Committee due to the new grievance procedures outlined in the proposed Faculty Handbook. The Senate will vote on this recommended change to the By-Laws on July 10.


Luther Keller reviewed the changes in the By-Laws which were recommended by his committee at the last Senate meeting. Such changes require a two-thirds vote for approval. These changes were approved unanimously by the Senate.


Walter Herndon reported on a recommendation of the Calendar Committee which the Educational Policy Committee was asked to consider. The Calendar Committee had recommended a one-day interval between classes and commencement in all quarters except spring quarter. But the Calendar Committee had been somewhat divided in making this recommendation. The Educational Policy Committee rejected the recommendation and advocated at least two days between the final day of classes and commencement.


Frank Leuthold reported that the Executive Committee met with members of the administration on June 2 to receive comments from the UT System administration concerning the Handbook. The Executive Committee recommends that two chapters (III and IX) be further reviewed by the Executive Committee and not voted upon by the Senate until the July 10 meeting.

Chancellor Reese commented that all parties have acted in good faith, desiring to reach agreement in the Senate today and to take the Handbook to the Board of Trustees in June, but the many word changes might overwhelm the Senate. Chapter IX involves a major rewrite but not substantive change. Chapter III does involve substantive changes. It is essential to reach good consensus agreement about the Handbook, therefore, it may be better to take the time necessary to reach such agreement and to take the Handbook to the Board at its fall meeting.

Ralph Norman reviewed the wording changes which were distributed to Senators at this meeting. He stated that most of the changes suggested by the review committees of the Senate had been incorporated.

Frank Leuthold outlined the procedure to be followed in considering the chapters of the Handbook. He asked Senators to indicate which chapters they wished to comment on. The remaining chapters were then voted upon collectively. A motion was made and seconded (Reed/Forrester) to accept chapters VII, VIII, X, XI, XII, XIII. The Senate voted to accept these chapters. Each of the other chapters was then taken up for discussion and a vote. Frank Leuthold instructed the Senators to be specific in their amendments they propose, giving specific additions, deletions, or word changes.

Chapter I. A motion was made to accept Chapter I (Ray/Crawford). Suzanne Kurth offered a change from members of her department, a proposed rewording of the last paragraph of page 1-12.

The Head is not obliged to follow the majority recommendations of the tenured faculty. The Head is required to explain frankly and openly the decision he/she has reached. In the report to the Dean, in addition to his/her own view, the Head is expected to present the majority view of the faculty. Where his/her view differs, he/ she is expected to support his/her recommendation with reasons. The Head will give the faculty an opportunity to submit a dissenting report, if they so desire.

The reasoning behind this proposed change is that the present wording implies that the Read has the power to disregard the majority will of the department faculty in making recommendations on appointment, promotion and tenure. This position places a direct barrier of an organizational sort in treating the Head as a colleague. The main thrust of this change is a strengthening of the statement as far as expectation and accountability of the Head in these recommendations. Several comments indicated that the sense of the amendment was already contained in the present wording if faculty were willing to see that the expectation is enforced. An amendment was moved and seconded (Kurth/Barrett) to instruct the Executive Committee to negotiate an elaboration of the language of the last paragraph on page 1-12 in order to strengthen it. The amendment was passed with a vote of 31 in favor and 27 opposed. The Senate voted to accept Chapter I as amended.

Chapter II. After a short discussion, a motion to accept Chapter II (Reed/ Posey) was carried.

Chapter IV. Discussion centered on the new requirement for faculty to notify the University if he/she is going to have counsel (legal or other) present in a grievance proceeding. The questions centered on two issues: no time is specified for notification of the faculty member before the hearing, there is not provision for the possibility for postponement if the ten-day limit is not met. An amendment was made (Reich/Pierce) to refer the ten-day notification issue to the Executive Committee for further negotiation. The amendment carried. The motion to accept Chapter IV as amended was passed.

Chapter V. An amendment was proposed (Barrett/Ray) to change “vacation” to “quarter without assignment” on page V-3, second line. The Senate passed this amendment. Two matters were clarified in response to questions from Senators. Quarter bank time is earned pay and is treated as such. The funeral leave changes in the chapter are a matter of approved Board policy.

Chapter VI. The following amendments were proposed and passed: (Carruth) 1) correction to the last sentence on page VI-1, change “choose between JCRS and TIAA-CREF” to “choose between JCRS (TIAA-CREF) and TCRS.” (Carruth/Reese) 2) that the Executive Committee reconsider page VI-1, paragraph 4, specifically the sentence, “The majority of UT faculty members participate in this plan.” (Herndon/Barrett) 3) that the Executive Committee look into page VI-9, section E 1. Chapter VI was accepted as amended.

Appendix IV. Ralph Norman recommended in the additions and corrections that the appendix on non-sexist language guidelines be deleted because of possible legal problems and possible difficulty in getting Board approval. A motion was made (Reese/Graf) to identify all the appendices as campus policies which would not need to be approved by the Board of Trustees. As campus policies, they could be distributed with the Faculty Handbook. This motion was passed by the Senate.

Prefatory note. An amendment was proposed and passed (Barrett/Hileman) that the Executive Committee consider inclusion of phrases concerning 1) notification to the faculty of changes in the Handbook due to actions of the Board, and 2) issuance of new chapters of the Handbook when sufficient changes occur. The prefatory note was accepted as amended.

Ralph Norman stated that the texts for Chapters III and IX will be distributed to Senators in time for the July 10 meeting, An attempt will be made to distribute them as much ahead as possible with one week as a minimum time limit.

George Spiva asked that Senators express their feelings on the amendment to Chapter III which had been distributed prior to this meeting, to himself, AAUP members, or other Senators. In regard to this amendment, Carl Pierce asked that the administration provide Senators with a document giving the reasons why the language in question (regarding a letter of reasons for termination to untenured faculty) was deleted. Chancellor Reese agreed to provide such a document.

The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Faculty Senate


July 10, 1978

The meeting was called to order by President, Frank Leuthold, at 3:07 p.m.

Senators absent: Bauer, Blank, Bratton, G., Calhoun, Cole, Collins, Culberson, DeLong, DeRidder, Edwards, Fox, Fussell, Gaertner, Haas, Hileman, Johnson, W., Johnston, Jones, Kohl, Martella, Mathews, Murphree, Murphy, Nooe, Peccolo, Pierce, Richards, Rubeiz, Schmudde, Spiva, Stoller, Sullivan, Thomforde, Tillman, Wagner, Ziegler.

The minutes of the June 5 meeting were approved as distributed.


The motion on the by-laws change, as printed in the July 10 Agenda, was carried. Russell French presented the report of the committee, indicating that some individuals who had been nominated will be on leave; they will be replaced as necessary by the committee. A motion was made that two women be added to the Legislative Committee. Hearing no other amendments, the slate of nominees was approved by the Senate.


Ken Walker reported on the main activities of the committee during the year:

1) release of faculty salary information. The administration agreed to release of statistical information. The committee suggested 1 January 1979 for release of 1978-79 information.

2) Part-time faculty status. There was no change for tenure; they should be considered for fringe benefits. The Fringe Benefit Committee will take up that matter.

3) Status of department heads who return to teaching. The committee has asked the administration to consider modernization of the headship system.

4) Affirmative action for the athletic department. There has been no release of a plan from that department.

5) Status of graduate assistants who drive university vehicles. The committee has asked for a clearer policy on insurance.

6) The committee has reviewed procedures for its new responsibilities in the faculty grievance procedure.



Tom Ungs reported that the committee has been working on a joint project with the Athletics Board Committee on Faculty Relations to develop a “Faculty- Staff Information Booklet on Athletic Programs and Policy.”

The booklet will cover the organization of the athletic program, its financing, and ticket policies. Next year the committee will be engaged in writing the booklet and getting approval from the Senate Executive Committee and the Athletics Board.


Gordon Sherman distributed a written annual report from the Research Council. The issues discussed and acted upon by the Council included: extra service pay, classified research with a final report due next year, research centers, review of faculty handbook chapters, analysis of statistics courses which will continue, nominations for research scholar awards, THEC formula funding, and the UTK Research Corporation. Copies of this report are available from the Secretary to the Faculty Senate.


Ralph Norman reported that the June 6 meeting included reports on continuing education and housing as well as curricular changes related to the change in the English sequence from 8 to 9 hours. New courses in Liberal Arts were approved: Anthropology courses on Northwest North America, descriptive titles for special topics courses in Art, and the curriculum and courses for a new applied music concentration, Studio Music and Jazz. The actions of the Council were approved by the Senate.


Evans Roth reported on two meetings held during Spring Quarter.

April 13: 1. The policy on UTK faculty/staff pursuing UTK Ph.D. degrees remains unchanged.2. The graduate student appeal procedure was changed so that a standing committee will hear such appeals.3. Another standing committee has been created to approve direction of doctoral dissertations.4. Work is in progress on a catalog statement concerning dismissal of graduate students.5. A college of Veterinary Medicine request to allow DVM students to enroll in UT graduate courses without admission to the Graduate School was approved.
May 11: 1. A statement on continuation and termination of graduate students was prepared for the Graduate Catalog.2. Consideration is incomplete on a request from the Graduate Student Council concerning conversion of incomplete grades to F after 2 quarters. Actions of the Graduate Council were confirmed by the Senate.

Actions of the Graduate Council were confirmed by the Senate.


Harry Rutledge reported on the efforts of this committee in response to the GSC complaint that long-term faculty charges of library materials impede graduate study and research. A computer print-out dated May 11 reveals that 275 faculty members have had 1970 books checked out and overdue for over one year; 78 books are checked out to 35 proxy ID cards; one individual has 74 books overdue. This information illustrated the problem. The committee plans to investigate the problem during Fall Quarter and to make some recommendations of appropriate action. The Senate passed a motion urging the committee to proceed to find a solution for this matter.


FACULTY HANDBOOK. Ralph Norman outlined the changes that had been resolved between the Executive Committee and campus and systems administrations. These included changes recommended by the Senate on June 5 (segments of Chapters I, IV, and the Note) and Chapters III and IX which had not yet been presented to the Senate. An amendment was passed to make a change in Chapter III, p. 15, par. 3, second sentence so that it now reads, “Before removing pay, the Chancellor shall have the concurrence of the majority of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.” There was extensive discussion, but the Senate approved all other revisions as they were presented.

Frank Leuthold distributed a written report to the Senate, “Review of UTK Faculty Senate Activities for the Academic Year 1977-78.” This report is available upon request to the Secretary of the Faculty Senate.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.