Subject: Meeting with Faculty Senate Leadership March 24, 2022 10AM

Chancellor Plowman and Provost Zomchick,
 
        Thank you for arranging to meet with us on Thursday March 24 at 10AM in the AHT 8th Floor Conference room. Below are some topics for possible discussion. The below list starts with bigger picture issues and we suggest focusing on them at first.
 
1. Updates on the main legislative bills that affect UTK academics. I hope that the less-problematic Divisive Concepts bill wording goes forward and that the "faculty" is replaced by "instructors" in the section on academic freedom. Do you know if UT will put out any statement that we are not "neutral" about the 2-strikes version of the bill? Regarding the Civics Institute bill, it is problematic to claim that the Institute will follow all UTK policies and procedures, but then have a search mechanism specified for a Director that doesn't follow these. It may help the Baker Center faculty finalize a decision about accepting responsibility for this institute if there are "guard-rails" in place making sure it fits with the Baker Center. 
 
2. Regarding the UTK institution of a policy on bullying in HR regulations here, we encourage you to ensure that concerns expressed during the Senate meeting about the draft wording in the resolution passed by the Senate be considered prior to action by HR. 
 
3. I expect to be asked very soon to vote on a COIA (Coalition for Intercollegiate Athletics) response to the Knight Foundation suggestions for institutions with large Athletics programs. My understanding is that there is also a federal legislation potential here and this could lead to "penalties" for programs that do not significantly contribute funding to academic programs and/or students. Given the lack of direct funding support from Athletics to academics here over the past decade, there could be significant penalties for UTK. Do you have suggestions on how I should respond as I am the voting representative of UTK to COIA? Note that I do not have any explicit item to vote on yet but have been told it is coming soon.
 
4. We have regularly been receiving comments from faculty about the perceived growth in administrative positions here. We have data over the past 10 years (2011 to 2021) on faculty positions (essentially flat for TT faculty and a 60% increase for NTT faculty), undergrad enrollment (increased by 19%) and graduate enrollment (increased by 4%). Can you provide any data on changes in administrative positions and/or non-administrative staff over this time period so that we have a way to respond to these consistent complaints about "administrative bloat"? We realize this may be challenging due to the combination of UTK and UTIA. 
 
5. We have been receiving concerns about lack of capability to plan for dealing with instructional needs next fall due to a lack of budgetary guidance to Colleges on what is available for new faculty (and GTA) hiring. With the Fall timetable going live very soon, it isn't clear that we have the capability to hire the instructional staff needed to meet demand. The budget planning process has been far from the "transparency" that was touted as arising from BAM. What processes are being put in place so that the budget process next year is not so rushed and limited in transparency?
 
6. We would really like to have a response on the question of support for the Senate and its officers for the next year. It is important for us to be able to let Heads of units know what effort of the faculty involved will be covered, in light of BAM. 
 
Stay well,
        Lou