xt72z31nkb5x https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt72z31nkb5x/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1980-04-14  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 14, 1980 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 14, 1980 1980 1980-04-14 2020 true xt72z31nkb5x section xt72z31nkb5x UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEX!NGTO\' KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING March 31, 1980

Members, Unive rsity Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday, April 14,
198?) at 3:00 p.m. in Room 106 Classroom Building.

AGENDA:

Approval of the Minutes of March 10, 1980.

Memorial Re s olutions

Chairman‘ 5 Rema rks

Ombudsman's Report — Professor Jean Pival

Action Items:

a)

Proposed addition to University Senate Rules, a

Scheduling of Common Exams, (Circulated under date of
April 1, 1980).

Proposed addition to University Senate Rules, Section VI,
Violation of Behavorial Standards in Patient Care, (Circulated
under date of April 1, 1980).

Proposed recommendations to Administration - additional
paragraph in ARII - l. O-‘i, (Circulated under date of April
1, 1980).

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 MlNUTES OF THE UNTVERSITY SENATE, APRTL l4 l980

S
The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, April l4, lQSH;
in Room 106 of the Classroom Building.

Joseph Krislov, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: James Applegate, Rusty Ashcrait, Charles E. harnhart, Janis t.
Bellack, John J. Bernardo*, Brack A. Bivins, Jack C. Blanton, James A. Holine*, Pwltr T.
Bosomworth, J. Michael Brooks, Barbara Bryant, Joseph T. Burch, Joe B. Huttram*, Patric'
Cegelka, S. K. Chan, Linda Chen*, Donald B. Clapp, Bob Clark, Charlotte Clark,
Clawson, Jane B. Clay, Lewis W. Cochran*, James S. Cole, Clinton Collins, Glenn D.
Collins, William L. Conger*, Samuel F. Conti, Margaret Cornell, Clifford J. Cremhrs,
George F. Crewe, John Crosby*, M. Ward Crowe, Lynne Crutcher, Charles Cunningham*, Paul
Davis, George W. Denemark*, David E. Denton*, Philip A. DeSimone, Ronald C. Dilluhay*,
Richard C. Domek, Joseph M. Dougherty, Herbert Drennon, Anthony Eardley, William D.
Ehmann*, Dave Elder, Kevin Ellis, Jane Emanuel, Graeme Fairweather*, Robin Farrar, Jana
Floyd, Paul G. Forand, Edward G. Foree, Tom Francis, Joseph Fugate, Art Callnhor*, Jess
L. Gardner*, John H. Garvey*, Jon P. Gockerman*, Mitch Griffin, Andrew J. Crlmws*,

Robert D. Guthrie, Joseph Hamburg, Curtis E. Harvey*, Virgil W. Hays*, Andrew J. Hiatl*,
Raymond R. Hornback, Alfred S. L. Hu, Clyde L. lrwin, Donald W. lvey, Freddie James,

H. Douglas Jameson, Dean Jtros, Keith H. Johnson*, Wesley H. Jones, John J. Just*,
Richard I. Kermode*, Edward J. Kifer*, Jane Kotchen, James R. Lane, Thomas P. anis*,
Carolyn G. Litchfield*, Paul Mandelstam*, Emanuel Mason*, Tony McAdams, Marcus T.
McEllistrem, Marion E. McKenna*, Ernest Middleton, Phillip W. Miller, David S. Newborn,
Elbert W. Ockcrman*, Clayton Omvig*, Chester L. Parker, Dennis E. Parsons*, Alan R.
Perreiah*, Anne Policastri, Antoinette Powell*, Deborah E. Powell, Anna R. Reed*, Daniel
Reedy*, Paul Roark, Charles Rowell, Robert W. Rudd, John S. Scarborough, George W.
Schwert, Ronald J. Seymour*, Gary Shenton, D. Milton Shuffett*, Otis A. Singletary*,
Julie Skaggs, John T. Smith, Gerald Slatin*, Tim Smith*, Wade C. Smith, Charles S.
Spiegel, Ralph E. Steuer, Marjorie S. Stewart*, Harold H. Traurig*, Relmond VanDaniker*,
M. Stanley Wall, Marc J. Wallace, M. O'Neal Weeks, Kennard W. Wellons*, Bruce H. Westley,
Wayne A. Wiegand, Alfred D. Winer*, Ralph F. Wisema1*, Patch C. Woolfolk

l). Isms

The minutes of the meeting of March 10, 1980, were approved as circulated.

Chairman Krislov made the Following remarks:

”I have a number of announcements. The first is somewhat a
lengthy one about the agenda for today and the agenda For the nest
meeting on May 5. Some of you have noticed that you did not ‘
receive the circulation listed as ”B", the propoSed addition to
University Senate Rules on Violation of Behavorial Standards In
Patient Care. Some of you may remember that we discussed this at
the March meeting. 0n the 3lst of March the representatives of
the Medical Center came to the Council with an entirely different

proposal.

The Chairman of the Council, as well as some of the members
of the Council that he was able to contact, insisted that the
Medical Center retrace its steps in presenting this proposal to
you. We Felt that a completely revised propoSal had to be approved
by the Council of the Medical Center and then by the Student
Affairs Committee. The Medical Center began that process and
apparently concluded it wanted to think through the entire propo—

*Ahsence Explained

 

 sal so on Thursday of last week they withdrew their proposal.
Consequently, there is nothing to that proposal and Item B on the
agenda will not be brought before you. It is my understanding that
the Medical Center is going to explore whether they can proceed in—
ternally and handle the problem of students and standards in that
fashion. If they decide, however, that they cannot handle it inter—
nally, they will have to return whatever proposal they have to the
Senate and perhaps those of you who are fortunate enough to be here
next year will see a new proposal.

The only two action items we have today are A and C. As you
would have suspected, we left considerable time for a discussion on
B and consequently we have a void in the agenda. Since we do have
another meeting and at least two proposals coming forward, it might
be useful to have an oral presentation on the two proposals. The
two proposals are remarkably similar. They involve enrollment re—
trictions——one in the Landscape Architecture Program and the other
is in the College of Business and Economics. I contacted Professor
Schach and Dean Ecton, and they indicated that they would make oral
presentations on their proposals. I thought we would circulate them,
but each is about four or five pages. I decided, however, that since
we were circulating them formally for the May 5 meeting, it would
be redundant to pass them out here.

Since my College is Business and Economics, I asked PrOfessor
Schwert to preside over the discussion on the Business and Eco—
nomics proposal today and the voting when it takes place on May 5.

The Chair will go to a series of six items——actions taken by
the Council, which we should report to you. '

First, we received a response from President Singletary re—
garding the proposal we passed on February ll. The recommendations
involved two changes in the Governing Regulations. In a letter
dated March 26, President Singletary reported that he was going
to support the recommended change concerning the phrase 'reappoint—
ment regarding tenured members participating formally in writing
letters on the reconsideration of a Chairman.‘ The President, ‘
however, did not concur in the change regarding the election of
faculty members to Search Committees. He said, 'I believe it to
be the intent of the Board of Trustees that there be faculty
participation in the selection of Heads of Academic Units. I also
believe that the procedures now in existence provide that oppor—
tunity. I am not persuaded that the election of representatives
will necessarily improve the selection process. I am convinced
there are times when such representation might prove to be detri—
mental. I can recall at least two occasions in the recent past
when conditions within a unit have deteriorated to a point where
it was deemed essential to go beyond the unit for a solution in
the leadership question.’ That is the President's response and
there are copies for you.

The second item is a request from President Singletary to
the Council regarding a request from the College of Social
Professions to change its name to the College of Social Work.

 

 _3_

The President thought this might be interpreted as an alteration
of the unit. The Council did not think that and simply responded
that we approved the change and urge a speedy implementation.

The third item I want to report to you is a request the Stu—
dent Government made to the Council. The Student Government re—
quested that the faculty join them in an 'evaluation of teaching.’
The proposal envisions a voluntary questionnaire which will be
circulated by the faculty member. The results will be tabulated
and then published. Some of you may remember there was such a
publication in the late sixties at this University and there have
been others at other universities. The Council agreed to suggest
individuals to the Student Government who were skilled in the
use of questionnaires. We have suggested several people to serve
as advisers to the group, but the full responsibility for the
questionnaire——the circulation, tabulating and printing would be
the sole responsibility of Student Government.

Item five is a request from the Medical Center to establish
a Cancer Center. This has been sent to the Committee on Organiza—
tion and Structure. I am sure they will be holding hearings so
those of you who are particularly interested in the establishment
of the Cancer Center will want to talk to Professor Grimes.

Item six, I have a letter from Dean Sands indicating that he
has talked again with the Registrar's Office about the relative
transcript and the concluding sentence is 'The Registrar agreed
to prepare a recommendation by May 5, 1980, to implement the

relative transcript in the simplified form.‘ Those of you who
are interested in that will be pleased to know there is some
progress.

The last item, which is a very sad item and one I hope we
may change next year, is a report from the Academic Programs
Committee. It is very short and'reads, 'The Academic Programs
Committee received no program proposals during 1979—80. Conse—
quently no action was taken.‘ I know there is very little money
for new programs, and it takes a long time to get through the
Senate and the President's Office, and they take even longer get—
ting through Frankfort. Some of them sat there for four or five1
years, which seems astounding. On the other hand, it does strike
me that somewhere in this institution we should be developing new
programs. I hope all of you will carry that message back. It does
seem we could have some activity in this area.

The Chair recognized Professor Jean Pival for the Ombudsman's Annual Report for
1979~80.

Professor Pival made the following remarks:

”This past year as Academic Ombudsman has given me the oppor—
tunity to see the University in a new way. From our narrow depart—
mental perspective, we tend to view the University as a great,
sprawling, diffuse mass. This year has proven to me that is rather
an academic ecosystem—~a living organism of complex and often deli—
cate interrelationships, the chief among which is the one involving

 

 _4_

the teacher and the students. This year has also taught me that
maintaining a healthy balance in that relationship demands the
cooperation of many people——not just students and faculty——but
administrators, advisers, counseling services, the registrar's
staff, and on occasion, the legal office. I am grateful for the
cooperation received from the representatives from each of these
groups with whom I have had contact. I especially value the
patient efforts of Gay Elste for her legal advice, of Ken Germain
and William Fortune who served as chairmen of the Appeals Board
during my tenure, of Paul Sears in the President's office, and of
Joseph Krislov and Cindy Todd in the Senate office. But especially
I must thank my assistant, Frankie Garrison, whose knowledge of the
Ombudsman's duties, whose familiarity with various University
offices, and whose unflagging sense of fairness have made the year
a smoother one than it might have been without her.

Like my predecessors, I have viewed the Ombudsman's office not
simply as a complaint department——a place where students can come
to voice a grievance and perhaps receive an academic "refund" or
exchange, although the office certainly has that function. lather,
I have tried to see it as an important part of the academic eco—
system——a service available not only to students, but to faculty
and administrators as well. This year in office has justified my
conviction that the Ombudsman is made uniquely aware of many re—
curring problems——perennial issues that require more than ad hoc
solutions; that demand changes in rules, policies, and often de-
partmental or college practices. All of us who have shared the
office agree that many of these problems would be better prevented,
than cured. To this end, I addressed much of my time and energy.
Thus, in addition to dealing with the day—to—day problems of
individual students, I have:

(I) Offered to conduct brief seminars for new faculty
and teaching assistants on procedures involving
student rights and faculty responsibilities. Sev—
eral departments have arranged such meetings.

Sent notices reminding faculty to apprise students
of course content and grading procedures. Another
notice on the mysteries of the I grade will be sent
at the end of the semester.

Met with groups of students——at Freshman Week—end,
at advising conferences, and in residence halls.

Worked with the Senate Council, the Rules Committee,
Student Government, the Dean of Students, and Sev—
eral academic deans to amend certain Senate Rules.
These have included administrative as well as aca—
demic procedures and many originated as specific
recommendations in Jane Emanuel‘s report last year
before this body. These changes include the following:

a. Establishing a policy to cover common examina—
tions——a mushrooming source of complaints.

 

 _5_

Amending Senate Rule VI — 1.1 and 1.2 to in—
clude an ”in writing" clause.

Developing a policy on holding final exams and
term papers for at least one semester.

d. Placing a statute of limitations on complaints.

The specific problems handled this year match with the ones
my predecessors have encountered——dissatisfaction over grades,
teaching practices, inaccessibility of teachers and administrators,
personality conflicts with faculty, inability to understand
foreign TA's, cheating and plagiarism, inadequate advising, regis—
tration problems~—to mention the most frequent. The relative
seriousness of the cases ranged from a request to reschedule the
daily 5:00 A.M. visits to empty a Dempsey—Dumpster outside the
windows of a women's dorm to charges of sexual harassment.

Since July 1, 1979, we have recorded 415 contacts, 161 of
which were brief telephone conversations or drop—in visits, each
requiring only a few minutes of our time. Of these 31 were in-
formational queries from faculty. Those cases demanding a consider—
able amount of time number 243 and at least 20 of those required
approximately fifteen hours each. Although the following totals
are listed primarily by colleges, some departmental figures are
given. The purpose of the latter is not to embarrass individual
departments, but to illustrate how complaints cluster or pattern
around particular problems. The 243 cases were distributed in the
following way: Agriculture — 1, Allied Health — 2, Arts and
Sciences — 116, Business and Economics — 64, Communications — 6
Dentistry - 1, Education — 10, Engineering — 18, Fine Arts — 5,
Home Economics ~ 5, Law _ 1, Medicine — 2, Pharmacy — 7, Social
Professions — 4, and Graduate School — 1. Significant departmental
totals are: Mathematics — 36, primarily complaints about non—
native instructors; Business Administration — 33, 99% of which
resulted from over—subscription in business courses required by
seniors; Physics — 8, Chemistry — 11, Accounting — 12, Psychology
10, all of which shared the same complaint——the common examinations.
One hundred and five cases involved full faculty members; 16 part:
time instructors; 47 teaching assistants. The number of cases
submitted to the Appeals Board was six; three others are pending
appeal.

5

And what of the students who used our services this year?
Contrary to popular mythology, the majority were bright, articulate
students with GPA's of 2.8 or higher. Thirty~five of the cases
were freshmen; 40 sophomores; 56 juniors; 98 seniors; 25 graduate
students. The imbalance in the number of seniors can mainly be
attributed to the Business Administration problems.

I would like at this point to put a personal conviction on
record. I have often heard this year the rationalization that the
number of complaints about a particular situation is statistically
insignificant. True, thirty or forty complaints in a program
serving several thousand students may seem statistically petty;
but when those complaints demonstrate a pattern year after year,

 

 then they as clearly define a problem as if alllthe students in
the program had been involved. They demand at least a search for
a solution. Remember, students come to the Academic Ombudsman
after they have exhausted other routes of appeal; only the most
determined or the most desperate make it that far.

To alleviate some of the most persistent and disturbing of
these problems, I suggest the following recommendations. Some
of these were cited by Frank Buck in his first Ombudsman's report
and which are still with us. My recommendations fall into three
categories. The first has to do with the Office of Academic
Ombudsman. To achieve better continuity, the appointment should
be extended to a two-year period and be considered a full—time
position. This would probably mean a different approach in fund—
ing; departments should not be burdened with that kind of expendi—
ture.

The second group of recommendations arise from the academic
problems encountered this year:

(1) Professional schools with codes of ethics should
be required to develop procedural guidelines for
ethical infractions. In addition, such codes
should be subject to University approval and should
include an appeals process.

Departments and colleges with large numbers of

foreign students should search for ways to improve
intercultural relationships between faculty and
students.

The University should develop guidelines for
appointing non—native teaching assistants and
provide a facility for improving their oral Eng—
lish if so needed.

All departments utilizing large numbers of teach—
ing assistants in multi—sectioned courses should
appoint coordinators to be responsible for train—
ing those assistants and for negotiating with
students. Some departments who now follow this
practice could serve as a model for others.

Departments should develop programs or expand
existing ones for faculty improvement in teach—
ing, both for new and regular faculty. There is
evidence that the programs to train new teach—
ing assistants stimulated by the Freshman Year
Committee recommendations are suffering from
erosion.

Colleges and departments should develop ways to
improve and award academic advising.

 

 _7_.

The last category of suggestions is not so much a recommenda—
tion as it is a charge to this body. This year I have on several
occasions encountered unfair and arbitrary treatment of students
made possible by ill—conceived rules that passed through the
Senate with too little debate and concern. My plea to you is
that in matters coming before this body that deal with academic
policies and penalties, that you deliberate long and carefully,
considering not only such issues as legalities and ambiguous
language, but also the human consequences of each rule. That is
the part that only the University Senate can perform for our
academic community. Now if I could be allowed a bit of levity,

I would like to make one last recommendation on amending a Senate
rule——the one that describes the characteristics that an Ombuds—
man should have——those saintly traits that all of us have found
imtimidating. I propose that we substitute the words from a
current popular Song——words more befitting the tasks imposed by
the office:

The Ombudsman must 'know when to hold 'em,
Know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away,
And know when to run.’

Professor Pival was given an enthusiastic applause.

The next order of business was not on the agenda, but the Chairman said that he felt
it was appropriate at this time and had to do with role functioning of the Trustees. He
said that there had been remarkable change which had taken place in the past year in—
formally in the relationship of the faculty trustee to the Council on Higher Education.
There is a statute passed, signed by the Governor which will change the term of office.

The Chairman recognized Professor Constance Wilson for a report.

Professor Wilson spoke to the Senate as follows:

"The faculty Trustee with a vote on the Board as a regular
Trustee is a relatively recent phenomenon. Faculty did not have
a representative on the Board until about 1959 when the AAUP 1
lobbied hard and successfully to place a non—voting faculty mem—
ber on the Board. Two voting Trustees on the Board did not come
about until 1972 with a change in the Statute. Faculty serve
for three years and can be reelected.

Ten members appointed by the Governor served for four years
until this past legislative session when the statute was amended
to extend the term to six years. The faculty term of three years
remains unchanged.

Another change affecting faculty at this last legislative
session was in HE 118 which added a Community College faculty
trustee. The word added is important since there was some sug—
gestion that one of the two faculty trustee positions be a110—
cated to the Community College System.

 

 —8—

In summary, the statute provides for three faculty trustees.
Two will be elected by faculty from the main campus; one will be
elected by faculty in the Community College System.

I would like to briefly mention some other activities that
are faculty trustee responsibilities. In addition to attending
regular Board meetings, the faculty also attend the meetings of
the Executive Committee since important business related to
faculty takes place at these meetings. Also, the Council on
Higher Education calls a meeting of all University faculty
trustees bi—monthly. Items such as budget, faculty salaries, re—
tirement, etc. are examples of the agenda. Periodically, one
of the faculty trustees will make a report to the Senate. I
will be glad to answer any questions.”

The Chairman recognized Professor William Wagner for a motion from the Senate Coun—
cil. Professor Wagner, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval
of the proposed addition to the University Senate Rules, Scheduling of Common Examina—
tions. This proposal was circulated to members of the University Senate under date of
April 1, 1980.

 

The Chair recognized Dean Donald Sands for any comments on the proposal. Dean Sands
thought there was confusion at the last meeting because the Senators were not aware of
the Committee's first recommendation date and time for common examinations. He said
that the proposal on the floor now resolved the problem.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Adelstein was curious
as to whether or not the Committee had considered the conflict between a regular class
exam and the common examination. Dean Sands responded that the Committee did consider
it, and he had thought about it himself. In a situation when a student had a class that
met from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. and also had a common examination scheduled from 5:00 to 6:00,
then that's the sort of thing the Common Examination Schedule in the Schedule Book should
prevent. The student would know in advance if he/she had two exams for the same hour.

There was no more discussion, and the proposed addition passed unanimously. The
proposal for Scheduling of Common Examinations reads as follows:

Background:

On March 14, 1980, this topic was discussed in the Senate. A
question was raised about the proposed addition to the Senate
Rules, and the issue was referred back to the Council. The prob—
lem was basically how a student would know about the Scheduling of
common examinations in order to avoid conflicts.

The Council has re—examined the background of the proposal, and
finds that it has already required that the Schedule Book announce
the date and the time of all common examinations. Hence, all
students will be informed of the exams and potential conflicts.

We believe that with a minor change in the last sentence, the
proposal should be adopted.

 

 Proposal: (delete portion in brackets; add underlined portion)

A student for whom two examinations have been scheduled for the
same time shall be entitled to have the examination for the class
with the higher catalog number reSCheduled. In case both classes
have the same number, the one whose departmental prefix is alpha—
betically first will be rescheduled. This rescheduling must be
requested of the appropriate instructor in writing at least two
weeks prior to [the last class meeting] the scheduled examination.

 

NOTE: This item will be forwarded to the Rules Committee for
codification.

The Chair again recognized Professor William Wagner for a motion from the Senate
Council. Professor Wagner, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended
approval of the proposed recommendations to the Administration as an addition to
AR II-l.O—l. This proposal was circulated to members of the University Senate under
date of April 1, 1980.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Jewell asked if it
would help for someone to tell the Senators what the procedure was at the present time
and what was being changed. Professor Sears responded that procedures had varied
through the years and several Deans had proceeded that way in the past. For the past
two or three years, the decision was made that this should not be done. If the recom—
mendation goes through from the department, then the Dean considers it. If the Dean
turns down the recommendation, that's it. It is now recommended to go one step fur—
ther if the individual requests his file be sent to the Area Committee for further
consideration. Professor Jewell asked if the procedures were changing by requiring
the Dean to consult the Advisory Committee on every recommendation. Professor Sears
responded in the affirmative. Professor Jewell said that there were two changes.
Professor Sears said that there were really three changes. The first one was in the
first sentence where it was mandatory for a person to be considered for promotion. The
second change was the mandatory use of an Advisory Committee within the College by the
Dean. The third change was the permissiveness or option of the faculty person after
a discussion with the Dean to request an evaluation of the recommendation.

Professor Canon asked how many more cases the proposal might feed into the Aca—
demic Area Advisory Committee of those people turned down by the Dean. He said that
he assumed faculty turned down would take advantage of the proposal. Professor Wagner
responded that the feeling was they would not. Professor Sears said that there was no
way to predict in advance the outcome. In all likelihood all individuals not recom—
mended for promotion would not request a review.

Professor Mitchell, Chairman of the Privilege and Tenure Committee, said that
the merits or demerits of the case, in his view, had nothing to do with the amount of
work the Area Committee had to do. He felt it was a matter of importance to the
University and the individual concerned. Professor Gesund asked if the proposal
also applied to people who are appointed as associate professor and who made the
decision on tenure for them. Professor Sears responded that they would have to go
to the Area Committee. Professor Sabharwal said that the chances were there would not
be too many borderline cases.

 

 Professor Sears asked to correct the statement he made about the case of an
associate professor without tenure. This case was not covered in the document on the
floor. It would be permissive under the current regulations for a Dean to give the
terminal year reappointment to an associate professor without tenure and without
direction from the Area Committee. Professor Adelstein wondered if the proposal might
be amended so that if a faculty member did not want to be reviewed, it would not be
mandatory. Dean Cox asked if the proposal would not affect people who were put
on terminal contract before the end of the probationary period. Professor Wagner said
that was the intention of the document. It was only through the sixth year which was
the critical year. Dean Cox said that being terminated after the third year was
just as critical for the faculty member.

The Chairman reminded the Senators the proposal was only a recommendation to
Administration, and he felt there seemed to be a fear of the tremendous number of
cases that might be generated.

Professor Gesund moved to amend the proposal as follows:

”A faculty member who is in the next to last year of his/her
probationary period must be considered....H

The Chair asked Professor Sears if the amendment would accomplish what Professor
Gesund hoped to accomplish. Professor Sears said that he never believed in editing a
document on the floor. The motion was seconded.

Professor Gesund said that the probationary period was defined as six years. Pro—
fessor Kemp said that the probationary period was based on prior service. It could be
two, three, or more years up to six. Professor Gesund said that the intent was for
anyone who had reached the end of the probationary period was entitled to a full review.
Professor Wagner asked Professor Sears if the amendment passed, could the proposal be
drafted to include the intent. Professor Sears said that it could. The Chair said that
he Would provide Professor Sears with the opportunity to write what Professor Gesund
wanted. Professor Gesund agreed to let Professor Sears edit the amendment. There was
no further discussion and the amendment passed. Professor Adelstein added a clause
to the amendment to read:

ll

”unless the individual does not wish to be....

Professor Gesund seconded the amendment, and it passed unanimously. Professor
Jewell moved to amend the proposal to change the next to the last sentence after the
phrase, "Within 30 days of notification..." to insert:

"if the Department Chairperson's recommmendations were positive”

Professor Jewell said that the Senate was opening up the possibility of a Depart—
ment's decision being overruled by Area Committees. The amendment was seconded. Pro—
fessor Wagner said that he was opposed to the amendment on the basis that there were
going to be few cases when the Department Chairman or Dean of the College would make a
recommendation the Area Advisory Committee would have to overrule. Professor Mitchell
said that from his Viewpoint this would negate half of the protective element. Professor
Sabharwal felt faculty members should have another chance if turned down for tenure by
Department Chairman and Dean. The amendment failed. The proposal as amended passed in
principle with the stipulation that Professor Sears would edit and present to the Senate
Council a proposal with the intent of the amendments included. The proposal as rewritten
by Professor Sears follows:

 

 background:

This proposal, to permit a faculty member in the sixth or next—to—
last year of his probationary period to request that his file be
reviewed by the appropriate Academic Area Advisory Committee, has

a long history. It was first suggested by last year's Privilege
and Tenure Committee. After some discussion the Council decided

to approve it, and requested Professor Paul Sears to draft a propo—
sal. Professor Sears drafted the proposal and it was approved by
the Council. It is now before you for approval. If adopted, it
will be sent to the Administration for consideratin of adoption.

Proposal:

A faculty member who is on appointment at the rank of assistant
professor in the sixth or next—to—last year of his/her probationary
peri