Faculty Senate Minutes for

December 15, 2016–2:00 pm

Signal Mountain Room, University Center

Members in Attendance: Ainsworth, A. Jerald; Asllani, Beni; Beech, Jennifer; Boyd, Jennifer; Cairns, Virginia; Churnet, Habte; Crawford, Beth; Dumas, Joe; Green, Margaret; Gunasekera, Sumith; Halstead, Diane; Hamblen, Josh; Hand, Kelli; Hargrave, Katie; Harvey, Jamie;Hill, Linda; Iles, Gale; Laing, Craig; Lee, John; McAllister, Deborah; McGhee, Felicia; Oglesby, Burch; Potts, Gretchen; Shaheen, Aaron; Sisworahardjo, Nurhidajat; Sompayrac, Joanie; Tanis, Craig; Trussel, John;Winters, Kathy; Zibluk, Jack

Members Absent: Anderson, Angle, Steven;Dee Dee; Bell, Mike; Bonnal, Michael; Brown, Richard; Cooley, Morgan; Davidson, Susan; Etheredge, Jessica; Hunter, Rik; Liang, Yu; Liedtka, Theresa; Mauldin, Marcus; Nichols, Roger; Rausch, David;Ray, Steve

Guests in Attendance: Simmons, Charlene; Zitkus, Sandy

  1. Call to Order
  2. Approval of minutes from 11/17/2016 meeting
    motion for approval: Zibluk 1st, Trussel 2nd
    motion approved
  3. President’s Report
    Sompayrac – I have spoken to Jennifer Boyd and other faculty about Honor Court issues.
    Boyd – In a Biology class there was an extremely large elevation in exam scores. Several students even had perfect scores. Upon investigation there were Flash cards posted with exam questions on the website Study Blue. In theory this is a website where students can provide study help for their fellow students. The students can post flash cards for other students to use. It does require that the students posted the flash cards to supply their name. The instructor does not hand back exams so someone had obviously taken a picture of the exam and then posted the questions on the website. The question then came up about how this fit in the honor code. It seems that the students are not understanding that this is a violation of the honor code. The students’ names and pictures are posted with the questions. It is not hidden.
    Sompayrac – After having these conversations, I would like to appoint a faculty task force to look at these issues such as how do these sites fit in the honor code. What is the culture on campus related to the honor code? It seems to be different at UTC than some other schools. Does the fact that the honor court is housed in Student Development instead of Academic Affairs make a difference? Volunteers for the task force were: Jennifer Beech, Jennifer Boyd, VirginiaCairns, GaleIles.
    Dumas – I am already chairing a committee for Graduate Counsel dealing with a similar topic. We are trying to decide if we need a different procedure for graduate students. The honor court is tailored for undergraduate students.
    Winter – Our students do not think if something is posted on the internet that it is plagiarism and a violation of honor code.
    Sompayrac – I think this is part of the culture. We are not training them well enough on what is a violation of honor code. We will try to have some kind of report by the end of the spring and hopefully a proposal.
  4. Administrative Reports - none
  5. Committee Reports
     Handbook Committee
    Crawford – Handbook Committee is bringing the new Chapter 1 forward for approval. This chapter is the old Chapter 2.
    Zibluk – Were there any red flags that brought out discussion on the committee level?
    Crawford –There were several different discussions but I would not call them red flags. Some of the changes feel significant since our previous chapter was not in alignment with board policy. We have brought the document back into alignment with board policy. There have also been some board policy changes which can now be seen on the Board of Trustees site.
    Q – What kind of changes were made? A – Crawford – Mostly a streamlining of the wording. One specific change was a clarification that the Board of Trustees is responsible for basic over aching guidelines for enrollment, admissions practices and all of those things across the campuses. Sompayrac – More of the substantive changes that affect Faculty are in other chapters. In this chapter, the big change was that the board is in charge of policy but process happens at the campus level. I did not see these changes as being big in terms of us. Crawford – System did not like UTC paraphrasing policy. Instead of paraphrasing, a link is now provided to the policy.
    Vote: For 26, Against 0, Abstain 0 -motion approved

 Curriculum Committee
Simmons – Committee brings all 22 proposals forward for voting
Discussion: none

Vote: For 26, Against 0, Abstain 0 - motion approved

  1. New Business - none
  2. Unfinished Business - none
  3. Faculty Concerns - none
  4. Announcements -
    Margaret Trimpey passed away
  5. Adjournment
    motion for adjournment: Dumas 1st, Potts 2nd- motion passes