2017-2018 UTC Faculty Senate

Annual Report and Recommendations

Respectfully Submitted by Gretchen E. Potts, 2017-2018 Faculty Senate President

  1. Governing Documents
  2. Faculty Handbook: The new faculty handbook was approved by the faculty following two electronic votes. The approved handbook aligned with board policy as of October 2017. Recent changes to board policy (March 2018) have required a few adjustments. These changes will be reviewed by the appropriate BOT committee at the June 2018 meeting. The new faculty handbook is effective August 1, 2018.
  1. Senate Bylaws:The bylaws of the faculty senate were last updated April 2016. Over the course of the year, the bylaws were updated at four senate meetings, with the most significant changes occurring at the first fall meeting on August 24, 2017. In addition to grammatical errors, some of the procedures in the bylaws did not align with the new faculty handbook. The Senate organizational meeting was moved to the first week of classes as new senators and president are not effective until July 1. The senator election process was adjusted for efficiency. Based on a campus-wide survey of committees conducted in 2016-2017 by the Committee on Committees, several changes were made to committee mission and charge. Committee membership was updated to reflect appropriate offices on campus.
  1. General Business
  2. Meeting Logistics:A few meeting changes were implemented to enhance efficiency.Senator seating was adjusted to facilitate discussion and vote recordings. A dedicated laptop and camera system were purchased so that meetings could be broadcast on Zoom. Meetings were also recorded and posted tothe internet.One-page summary minutes were implemented so faculty could quickly review the meeting discussions and voting results.
  1. Tenure Policy: The Senate discussed several proposed changes to the System Tenure Policy. In addition to open discussion for all faculty, feedback was collected through several survey processes and shared with UT-System Office.
  1. Campus Funding Opportunities: The Senate organized a file of internal funding opportunities. This file is available on the Senate website. (
  1. Honor Code: The Senate worked with Associate Dean of Students Brett Fuchs to update the Honor Code. The new code offers more protections for the student and for the faculty. It also provides a process for the student to choose an individual hearing officer, rather than an Honor Court proceeding. The new Honor Code was approved by a vote of 25-0-0 on 10/16/2017.
  2. Student Code of Conduct: The Associate Dean of Students Brett Fuchs presented a revision to the Student Code of Conduct. The revised document was approved by the Senate by a vote of 29-0-0 on November 16, 2017.
  1. Tennessee Universities Faculty Senate (TUFS):Per the TUFS governing documents, UTC has two TUFS representatives, the President of the faculty senate and a faculty representative. The Senate approved a motion for the President-elect to serve as the faculty representative of the TUFS. The bylaws were amended to include this recommendation.
  1. Focus Act and UTC Advisory Committee:The Senate approved a motion for the Past-president to serve a two-year term on the new UTC Advisory Committee as dictated by the Focus Act.Thus, every other Past-president will serve on the committee. The Past-president will also serve as an ex-officio member of the Senate in the second year of the term.
  1. Faculty Concerns
  2. Online Fees: By request of the Senate, Dr. Richard Brown, Executive Vice-chancellor for Finance and Administration addressed the Senate on online fee use. Dr. Brown stated that preferred expenditures must meet the intent of the Board of Trustees approved fee. The Provost’s Office and Budget and Finance Office will be reviewing fee expenditures quarterly to make sure they are used appropriately. It was stated that Academic Affairs/Finance and Administration would form a collaborative committee (across the colleges) to evaluate fee use. The Senate approved a motion to request that administration report back on the committee findings at the November 2018 meeting.
  1. Academic Calendar and Part of Term: It was brought to the attention of the Senate that in some semesters, the Part of Term courses meet over academic breaks (Fall Break and Spring Break). By request of the Senate Executive Committee (and prompted by a faculty concern), the Chancellor’s Office agreed to review the academic calendar for AY 2019-2020 and to adjust the calendar so that the Part of Term courses do not meet over breaks. Table 1 summarizes of academic calendars in the state. UTM has a calendar similar to UTC (with the same amount of breaks) and would be a good model for the new UTC calendar.
  1. Peer Institutions:This past year, the UT-System generated a new list of equivalent peers and aspirational peers for UTC based attributes ( There is concern that the list of equivalent peers is not comparable to UTC, but rather of a lower tier. For example, one of the schools on the equivalent peers list does not have tenure (Florida Gulf Coast University). The Senate President has brought this concern to the attention of the UTC Administration and the UT-System Administration.
  1. Sponsored Events: In addition to Senate meetings and full faculty meetings, the faculty senate sponsored four events this past year. These included the Parent and Family Weekend Opening Reception at the IMAX Theater, AAC&U Webinar: Signature Work on April 27, 2018, Lunch and Learn: ePortfolios, Implementation and Assessment on June 6, 2018, and AAC&U Webinar: Teaching and Learning on June 19, 2018 (upcoming).
  1. Resolutions
  2. Outsourcing ( The faculty senate passed a resolution in regards to outsourcing of facilities. The resolution supported the position that each University of Tennessee campus control the outsourcing decision, rather than a state mandate. The resolution passed by a vote of 22-0-2 on 09/21/2017.
  1. Optional Retirement Program Withdrawal Resolution ( The state legislature was considering a bill changing the withdrawal requirements for the optional retirement plan. The changes would allow faculty and staff to control all of their retirement funds. The Senate passed a resolution supporting actions by the University of Memphis Faculty Senate to repeal the section of Tennessee code or exempt higher education faculty from the code. The resolution was approved 28-0-1 on 11/16/2017.
  1. Focus Act ( faculty senate considered a resolution requesting a faculty member be included on the new UT-system board. The resolution was approved unanimous by voice vote on 02/15/2018.
  1. Committee Reports

Committees were populated by the Committee on Committees and membership was announced by faculty-wide email on August 4, 2017. Committee chairs received an annual charge developed by the faculty senate executive committee. The committee charges are located in Table 2. The 2017-2018 annual committee reports are stored in the faculty senate archives ( and also in the Library special archives. Several committees developed recommendations based on their work this year.Please read the committee recommendations in Section VII.

  1. Committee Recommendations
  2. Academic Standards:The committee should provide grade distribution data and analysis to the faculty senate on an annual basis for continuous review. Progress of first-generation college students should be detailed in future grade distribution reports.
  1. Budget and Economic Status Committee
  2. There should be greater clarity at the department level over what constitutes “exceeds” in the EDO process. This may involve more training of department heads in evaluating, or more discussion in the department of how “exceeds” is determined every year. If merit is to the basis for future salary increases then clarity and consistency in the awarding of exceeds becomes increasingly important to the faculty.
  3. Subsequent salary adjustment plans (be they merit or equity based) should be developed with more consistency across the campus, and should be administered with more oversight by the campus Administration. It does not follow that all collegiate plans should be exactly the same, but more uniformity would address some of the “fairness” anxiety on the part of the faculty.
  4. Subsequent salary adjustment plans (merit or equity) should be communicated to the campus at least at the college level (by the Deans), but preferably to all faculty by the Administration (communication is key).
  5. The results of the UT System-wide review of faculty and staff salaries being conducted this year should be shared with the BESC and the Senate as soon as it is available.
  6. The Administration must not lose sight of the impact of salary compression on senior faculty. The lack of salary distinction between ranks can be demoralizing.
  7. While we recognize the continued focus of the UT Board on performance (merit based salary increases and post-tenure review) makes across-the-board increases increasingly unlikely, the long-term effects of no cost of living salary increases is counter-productive as it is demoralizing for employees and leads to low morale. Recognition of this impact must be taken into account as the University moves forward.
  8. With the expansion of the campus footprint and the increase in student enrollment, we encourage the campus Administration to continue to make adding additional security personnel a priority.
  9. While we applaud the faculty/staff computer refresh program, we encourage the campus Administration to not neglect support for student computer labs-aging hardware and a lack of IT support will inevitably have detrimental effects on student performance and future enrollment (and an impact on our bottom line).
  10. The committee recommends the campus Administration request that President Di Pietro schedule a visit to campus to visit with the UTC faculty.
  1. Course Learning Evaluation
  2. Spring 2018 pilot CLE results must be generated, analyzed, and compared with Fall 2017 pilot CLE results. This could be accomplished during the summer, to expedite the path to a possibleCLE implementation during the fall semester 2018.
  3. Very early in the fall semester 2018, the committee will need to report to the senate the results of the pilot CLE (both fall 2017 and spring 2018 semesters) as well as the results of the pilot CLE faculty survey. The committee will also need to explain all revisions to the CLE and seek Faculty Senate approval to implement the final version. CLE implementation could take place as early as fall2018.
  4. Finally, should the revised CLE secure Faculty Senate approval, committee members wish to impress upon the senate the importance of publicizing the CLE roll out. We feel very strongly that every attempt must be made (perhaps via a publicity campaign that could include email announcements, open forums, fliers, etc.) to give faculty sufficient time to adequately prepare forthis important change.
  1. Curriculum: It is suggested that the next curriculum committee look at the following:
  2. How “effected” departments are defined. The current guidelines provide a limited explanation. Following issues with a proposal that did not acknowledge departments that some argued were affected by the proposal, it was suggested the committee revise the guidelines. The 2017-2018 committee did not have time to attempt this task.
  3. Why some fall proposals do not reach the university curriculum committee until February or later. Each year the goal of the committee is to have all of the fall curriculum proposals to the Senate no later than the January meeting. Unfortunately, the last two years the committee has had to vote on dozens of proposals past the January meeting. The proposals arrived “late” for a variety of reasons including (1) delays in approvals at lower levels and (2) work flows for some proposals starting well past the curriculum submission deadline. The next committee may want to explore whether policy changes (like time limits on approvals or a refusal to accept proposals past the due date) are needed.
  1. Faculty Grants:The committee recommends increasing the amount of funding it can allocate tosupport future grants.
  1. Faculty Handbook
  2. The Handbook Committee recommends that the first task of all future handbook committees each year is to review the handbook and check all links and connections to system and board policy (as well as other web-links) to ensure that policies and links are up-to-date.
  3. In the March 2018 Faculty Senate meeting, the Handbook committee was charged with reviewing any current practices or processes for faculty mentoring and to perhaps research to identify how mentoring programs are handled and supported at other universities. In the concerns for ensuring that the Spring Board revisions to the tenure and other policies were included or at least referenced in the April handbook submissions, we did not find time to pursue this topic. We are requesting that the 2018-2019 Handbook Committee take on this charge.
  1. Faculty Rating of Administration
  2. The Faculty Rating of Administration survey should be distributed to faculty in late Fall Semester – exact distribution date will be coordinated with the Office of Planning, Evaluation & Institutional Research. Newly appointed administrators (less than a year in the role) would not be evaluated in the cycle. By Feb. 15th, the Provost should email faculty to announce survey results availability and provide instructions for faculty to locate the results By March 15th, the administration (Chancellor and Provost) should report to Faculty Senate, addressing survey results. By the end of April,Deans & Directors should report feedback on survey results to faculty via departmental meeting
  3. Next year’s committee will have to be proactive, maintaining this year’s energy regarding timelines, accountability, and timeliness. Stable committee membership, to the extent possible, from 2017-18 to 2018-19 may be of benefit.
  4. Upcoming considerations: Should adjuncts be included, generally? Do adjuncts have a representative on some committees? Determine whether adjuncts are in a position to adequately evaluate administration via existing survey. If yes, obtain and display results separate from faculty. If no, evaluate whether another survey instrument needs to be created to obtain input from adjunct faculty.
  1. Graduate Council
  2. Streamlining/refinement of Curriculum Proposal submission/approval process in SharePoint with possible development of a “tutorial” for users
  3. Management of the Graduate Assistants in the Graduate School
  4. Maintenance/updating of the Graduate School Faculty roster online
  5. Compensation for Graduate Program Coordinators
  6. Accurate/meaningful membership/representation of Graduate School Programs on the Graduate Council with dissemination of discussion/information to and from the Programs
  1. Non-tenure track
  2. The faculty handbook does not specify that lecturers must use the EDO for annual review, so we believe that a new Annual Review Form for Non-Tenure Track Faculty should be designed and implemented. This can be done at the university or college level, but we believe that consistency and clarity is important. Currently, the committee chair, Stephanie Todd, is working with the College of Arts and Sciences to design such a form for use in their college. This could be adopted by other colleges also. While we do not believe adjuncts should undergo a formal evaluation like full-time faculty do, we suggest that department heads and/or program directors provide adjuncts with some type of feedback on their performance. This could be done via an informal meeting, class observation, etc.
  3. We recommend that 1) chapter 4 of the faculty handbook be further revised to provide additional language requiring colleges and departments to clarify work load requirements for all non-Tenure Track faculty and 2) college/department bylaws be revised to include such language.
  4. Below are several specific suggestions that came from non-TT faculty as to how their colleges and departments could provide additional support for them:
  5. Implement college-level and/or department-level non-Tenure Track Committees or Liaisons that could serve to hear and address faculty concerns, relay important information, and serve as a liaison between non-TT and TT faculty.
  6. Implement a mentor program for lecturers similar to programs for TT faculty. When a new lecturer is hired, they will be paired with an experienced lecturer who can help guide them through their first year, answer questions, and help clarify expectations.
  7. Clarify departmental and collegiate bylaws so that they clearly define teaching, service, and/or research expectations for non-TT faculty.
  8. We believe that, going forward, the non-Tenure Track Committee should build on the work done so far this year and creating a “Best Practices” document addressing some of these issues. The committee might research what practices are working best in different colleges and departments at UTC as well as what other universities are finding effective for non-TT faculty; that information can then be complied into a document which can be distributed to Deans and Department Heads. This year, because the handbook was in flux, the committee spent a great deal of time gathering information and listening to concerns and issues. I believe that next year’s committee will have an opportunity to address some of those concerns across the university. With the growing number of lecturer and adjunct faculty at UTC, the university will need to consider the roles, rights, and responsibilities of all non-TT faculty going forward.
  1. Student Media Board:One ongoing issue that came as part of these meetings is the definition of student media. A group of students wish to bring the online publication, The Torch, a minority-focused activity, under the auspices of student development and the board. Questions of budget and oversight arose, and we will continue to discuss the issue in the ensuing year
  1. Budget

The faculty senate has a budget of $30K. The budget was used to support faculty and the workings of the senate.Financial support was offered to the faculty committees. A laptop and camera system were purchased to record all meetings. The faculty senate secretary received extra service pay (in lieu of release time). Due to the volume of proposals, the chair of curriculum received release time for the spring semester. The Senate offered refreshments at every meeting and sponsored refreshment at the full faculty meetings. Honor Code swag was purchased and distributed to students and faculty. Table 3 contains a broad summary of how monies were spent.