Faculty Senate MinutesSeptember 1, 2016 - 3:10 pmTennessee Room, University Center

Members in Attendance: Joanie Sompayrac, Gretchen Potts, Beth Crawford, Burch Oglesby, Roger Nichols, John Lee, Michael Bonnal, Deborah McAllister, Gale Iles, Marcus Mauldin, Katie Hargrave, Morgan Cooley, Steve Ray, Felicia McGhee, Aaron Shaheen, Jennifer Beech, Rik Hunter, Jennifer Boyd, Sumith Gunasekera, Diane Halstead, Beni Asllani, John Trussel, Craig Tanis, Yu Liang, Joe Dumas, Nurhidajat Sisworahardjo, Kelli Hand, Jamie Harvey, Linda Hill, Jessica Etheredge, Virginia Cairns, Mike Bell, Steven Angle, A. Jerald Ainsworth, David Rausch, Richard Brown, Theresa Liedtka

Members Absent: Craig Laing, Habte Churnet, Josh Hamblen

Guests in Attendance: Emma Morris, Daniel Pack, Ethan Carver, Jeff Elwell, Valerie Rutledge, Kathi Wheatley, Chris Brockman, Robert Dooley, Michael Jones, Linda Frost

1. Call to Order2. Approval of minutes from 4/21/2016 meetingMotion for approval – 1st Bell, 2nd Halsteadno discussionmotion approved

3. Unfinished Businessnone

4. President’s Reportnone

5. Administrative ReportsChancellor Angle’s ReportCurrent enrollment is 11,539 as of 9/1/2016 which is up 1.1% from 2015. Graduate School enrollment is up 5%.Housing is full with approximately 40 students in overflow housing at the Read House Hotel. There were only 3 no shows of students who had requested campus housing.Thanked all the faculty members who helped with recruiting.

6.Committee ReportsCommittee on CommitteesThe following names were submitted for approval as members for the 2016-2017 Committee on Committees:Jennifer Boyd, BGES (CAS)Virginia Cairns, Library

Aaron Shaheen, ENGL (CAS)Jamie Harvey, HHP (CHEPS)Craig Tanis, CPSC (CECS)Gretchen Potts, Chair, President Electmotion for approval – 1st Dumas, 2nd TrusselHearing no objection - Motion approved

Handbook CommitteeThe following names were submitted for approval as members for the 2016-2017 Handbook Committee: Beth Crawford, EDUC, ChairBeni Asllani, COBMike Bell, LIBLinda Hill, NURSGale Illes, CRMJSteve Ray, THSPMotion for approval 1st Dumas 2nd BeechHearing no objection - Motion approved

7. Faculty Appointment to the University Faculty Council (UFC)UFC is a system wide council which is composed of the Faculty Senate Presidents and one faculty member from each campus. Faculty member appointments are three years. One of the UFC duties is to look at UT Board of Trustees’ PolicyJoanie Sompayrac appointed Diane Halstead to represent the UTC Faculty. 8. Handbook Issues – Chapter 8Not considered at this meeting

Joanie Sompayrac gave a speech in which she made the following points regarding the

Faculty Handbook:

Despite all the changes to the Faculty Handbook, we faculty have not really had control

of the faculty handbook since the merger into the UT System. So much of what governs

our employment has been increasingly mandated by Tennessee State law and UT Board

of Trustees Policy. The Faculty Senate By-laws are what we control, but we are merely

advisors when it comes to the Faculty Handbook.

Over the past two years, we have been asked, in our advisory capacity, to work on

revisions to our UTC Faculty Handbook. Candidly, we have failed in that endeavor

because we attempted to make changes to the Handbook that conflicted with Board

Policies. Our revised Handbook could not go to the Board for approval with language in

it that conflicted with Board policy. So, we are being given one more chance to fix our

Handbook. Much of it is out-of-date, or conflicts with what we actually do, or conflicts

with State law and/or Board Policy.

The Handbook Committee has spent an extraordinary amount of time working on a

proposed new draft of the Faculty Handbook. Over the next few meeting, the Handbook

Committee will bring forth new chapters for your consideration. I cannot tell you just

how hard they are working and how grateful I am to them for all of their efforts, and I can

assure you that they are rubber-stamping NOTHING.

The process for revision of the Handbook is tedious at this stage because of the all laws,

policies and procedures involved. Our formal process will be supplemented by this

informal process:

Handbook Committee drafts revisions

Campus administration approves, at least in concept, and our local legal counsel reviews the drafts to alert us to any possible problems he sees.

Then we will send the drafts to UT for Katie’s office and the Office of the General Counsel to examine to ensure there are not problems with conflicts with state law or Board policies

Assuming we have pass that review, the drafts will go to Faculty Senate for a vote

9. Cumulative Performance Review Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review

President Sompayrac began the discussion on this topic with a few remarks:

I understand the value of tenure. Many of my colleagues in the private sector (and on the

Board of Trustees) cannot comprehend tenure, but I think there are some faculty who

misunderstand it, too. Why was tenure created? Dr. Gregory Scholz from the American

Association of University Professors states:

the role and purpose of tenure in American higher education is to protect academic freedom in order to promote the discovery and dissemination of knowledge and thus serve the common good. Academic freedom, as understood by the AAUP, is a professor's freedom "to teach, both in and outside the classroom, to conduct research and to publish the results of those investigations, and to address any matter of institutional policy or action whether or not [one is] a member of an agency of institutional governance. Professors should also have the freedom to address the larger community with regard to any matter of social, political, economic, or other interest, without institutional discipline or restraint, save in response to fundamental violations of professional ethics or statements that suggest disciplinary incompetence"

While tenure is designed to protect academic freedom and to serve the common good, it

does not to guarantee lifetime employment. While I assure you that I stand up here today

and all year as an advocate for faculty, I think part of my role as an advocate for faculty

means that I am an advocate for hard-working faculty and not those few faculty members

who use tenure to bully junior faculty into silence. I am an advocate for hard-working

faculty who continue to work hard and act contentiously even after earning tenure. I

refuse to be an advocate for the few faculty who abuse their tenure and abuse the trust of

their students, refuse to engage in meaningful scholarship and refuse to serve on any

committees.

As I see it, the revised EPPR policy that is being presented ADVOCATES for all of us

who work. It advocates for those of us carry the workload while those very few who earn

tenure and then choose to rest on their laurels do virtually nothing. What of those who

become ill or need assistance? This policy is NOT designed to penalize those people.

This is for faculty who refuse assistance and choose to be non-compliant with requests to

be the colleagues will ALL need them to be. I have read it, and I honestly believes it

protects us and does not target us. If I were a lazy or low-performing faculty member, I

would feel otherwise, but I should feel otherwise.

The presentation was turned over to Katie High, Vice President of Academic Affairs and

Student Success. The Powerpoint slides which are included were part of Katie High’s

presentation.

Assisting Dr. High with the presentation were:

India Lane, Assistant Vice President of Academic Affairs and Student Success

Toby Boulet, UTK, Engineering Chair

Valerie Rutledge, UTC Dean, College of Health Education and Professional Studies

The initial part of the presentation was on how the cumulative performance review was initiated and proceeded. This part of the presentation is summarized in the CPR Cover Letter. The CPR Cover Letter may be found on the Website Agenda for the 9-1-2016 Faculty Senate Meeting.

Current policy was established in 1998.

Slide 2: Summary Data Of Implementation Of Current CPR PolicyCPR has been implemented 25 times. Of those:3 faculty are now in good standing4 cases are in progress17 resigned or retired - there is no data on why they retired or resigned1 faculty member was terminatedFor the current cycle of reviews: Out of 2300 system wide reviews only 49 faculty received ratings of needs improvement and 4 received ratings of unsatisfactoryBased on those numbers, this policy would apply to very few faculty members.

There are differences in the 1998 policy and what is being proposed to the President

Slide 3: On Differences Between The Old And New PolicyThe new name represents that this is a professional development opportunity with assistance from peersThe old policy was short, only one and a quarter pages. The new policy is longer, 7 to 8 pages.The reason it is longer is due to the large number of comments received and integrated into the document. Comments were arranged by campus and topics. The topics were them deliberated by the task force. A vote was taken on each. Seven out of eleven task force members had to vote in favor of including the topic for it to be adopted into the document. The task force tried to implement specific recommendations and comments from faculty.

Sixty-four pages of comments were received. All comments were brought before the task force for discussion.

Slide 4: On Differences In TriggersIt was stated that more time was spent discussing the triggers than anything else.

Slide 5: If a trigger occurs, the evaluation is reviewed by the Dean and Provost. They will also look at the evaluation from the year prior to the trigger year. If the Provost thinks something peculiar might have occurred, he/she has the power to overturn that evaluation. The Provost was put in charge of the process to increase the consistency of

implementation. These are the default procedures. If a campus does not think this policy will work on that campus, they may develop another policy. However, the procedures for that campus would have to be approved by the UT Board of Trustees.Task force tried to be more precise in the composition of the EPPR review committee. All members should be tenured and hold the rank or higher of the faculty member being reviewed. Everyone has to be familiar with the discipline. Of the 5 members, one must be from outside the department.

Slide 6: If EPPR process is triggered, it will not be affected by a grievance. The grievance can run concurrently with the EPPR but the EPPR will not stop and wait for the grievance to be settled. Some of the current CPR cases have run 4 and 5 years. The new policy limits the improvement plan to 18 months. It was felt that that was long enough to determine if progress was being made. At midpoint of the 18 months, there will be a check in to see if the faculty member is making progress.

When this process of creating the new EPPR policy started, there were concerns raised about the unevenness of performance evaluations done by Department Heads. This is a concern that was not just raised by faculty but also Provosts, Chancellors and others. It is on the radar of the administration so it is a shared concern and shared mission to improve the consistency of performance evaluations.

You have to recognize that you cannot write a policy that will anticipate everything and protect everyone from someone’s bad skills or behaviors.

Questions:

Halstead – Q - Why did the trigger change from 2 in 5 years to 1 in 4 years which seems to be a more stringent standard? – What was the rationale? A- rationale – If someone receives an unsatisfactory rating, that is an F. It indicates that there is a problem. It might not be with the person who received the F. It might be with the person who gave the F. It is not fair to the faculty to allow whatever situation produced the F to continue. It should be investigated. This policy puts Provost in the hot seat to figure out where the problem occurred and put steps into motion to alleviate the problem. The problem should not be allowed to fester.

Beech Q – When you look at data on who had received ratings of needs improvement or unsatisfactory, was there a gender analysis done?A- High - None at this time. The Committee just asked for how many cases there had been. Since this process was in the hands of the Deans, some did a better job than others of handling the data and some Deans have left. So the data was difficult to collect. However, we will take a look at the data to see if anything gives us pause.

High – Another recommendation that will be given to the President will be: The policy goes into effect July 2017. After 1 year, the policy will be reviewed to see if revisions need to be made.

DumasQ – Is this just an information session, or is the faculty senate supposed to take an action on this policy?A – Sompayrac - This is just an informational session. High – this is a board policy – Dumas – I have concerns and I represent constituents that have concerns. Do we have any further input at this time?Summarized answer from Sompayrac: Faculty do not have inputs to change the current policy. However, you can bring your concerns to Halstead or Sompayrac. Those comments will be brought before the UFC and when the policy is reviewed in a year those comments will be addressed.

Dumas – Many of the concerns are over triggers and the process itself and fact that the Chancellor does not have to follow the recommendation of the committee. While its intent is not to gut tenure it could have that effect if a Chancellor is so inclined to purge a group faculty.

The committee could not address that. The Board of Trustees has put the Chancellor in charge.

High - The current policy allows Chancellors to start the termination of tenure without waiting for the CPR committee recommendation. That does not change with this policy.

Sompayrac - I get your point but I am not sure how a chancellor would run the university without faculty.

A comment was made on the number of lawsuits that would follow.

High – This policy hinges on well written departmental expectations for performance. That is the best protection for the faculty.

Halstead –I appreciate Joe’s comments and have heard similar concerns in the College of Business. This policy was presented on this campus at the very end of the semester. There was no discussion allowed in our full faculty meeting. We were directed to send written comments. We did not have the opportunity as a full faculty to discuss this, to debate it, to agree or disagree with each other. Which I think helps with the long term acceptance of something like this. That may be why some faculty feel left out and feel like they have no voice.

The question was raised in the full faculty meeting by a faculty member asking if we could discuss it and it was not allowed. While a quorum was not present, many felt that it could have and should been discussed.

Q: What is the plan for training department heads? Ainsworth – UTC has started a Provost Leadership Series and part of the reason for this was for the development of Department Heads. We are trying to increase the skills of the Department Heads. We are putting money into this.

10. New Business

The Full Faculty Meeting will be held on Sept 27th.

The Chancellor has agreed to take anonymous questionsJoanie Sompayrac will be announcing this to the faculty. Joanie Sompayrac and Steve Ray will compile the questions.The Chancellor has agreed to sit down with the faculty to answer the questions.

11. Faculty ConcernsHarvey – When a person is being considered for Tenure does the Departmental RTR have to tell them the numbers on vote. Sompayrac – The committee does have to tell them the vote numbers.

12. Announcements none

13. AdjournmentMotion for Adjournment – Halstead 1st, Trussel 2nd