xt7kwh2dc50k https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7kwh2dc50k/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1980-02-11  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, February 11, 1980 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 11, 1980 1980 1980-02-11 2020 true xt7kwh2dc50k section xt7kwh2dc50k UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON :ENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
l0 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

February 29, 1980

Membe rs , Unive rsity Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday, March IO,
1980 at 3:00 p. m. in Room CB 106.

AGENDA:

/cet

University Senate Minutes, February ll, I980.
Chairman's Remarks.
Action Items:

21) Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section III,
Course Numbering Sequences. Circulated under date of
February 26, I980.

b) Proposed addition to University Senate Rules relative to
Common Examinations, and proposed addition to University
Senate Policy Statements relative to scheduling Common

Examinations. Circulated under date of February 27, 1980.

0) Proposed addition to University Senate Rules concerning
Behavioral Standards in Patient Care (Medical Center). FOR
DISCUSSION ONLY. Circulated under date of February 28,
1980.

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

NOTE: Whenever possible, amendments or motions relative to agenda items
on the floor of the Senate for action should be presented to the presiding officer
in writing by the person(s) proposing said amendments or motions prior to the
opening of the Senate meeting.

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY ll, 1980

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, February ll,
1980, in Room 106 of the Classroom Building.

Joseph Krislov, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: M. I. H. Aleem*, C. Dwight Auvenshine, Michael Baer*, Harry H.
Bailey*, Charles E. Barnhart, John L. Bernardo, Brack A. Bivins*, Jack C. Blanton,
James A. Boling*, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Joseph Bryant, Joseph T. Burch, Joe B. Buttram*,
Charles Byers, Patricia Cegelka*, Jean Charron, Donald B. Clapp, Bob Clark*, Charlotte
Clark, D. Kay Clawson, Jane B. Clay, Lewis W. Cochran, William Cohen, James S. Cole,
Samuel F. Conti*, Margaret Cornell, Emmett R. Costich*, Raymond H. Cox, James E. Criswell,
Philip H. Crowley*, Paul Davis*, Guy M. Davenport*, George W. Denemark*, David E. Denton,
Philip A. DeSimone*, Ronald C. Dillehay*, Joseph M. Dougherty, Herbert Drennon, Roland
Duell*, Phillip Duncan*, Anthony Eadley, W. W. Ecton, Lee A. Elios<'f*, Kevin Ellis*,
Jane Emanuel, Joseph Engelberg, Jana Floyd, Edward G. Foree, Tom Francis, Wilbur W. Frye*,
Joseph Fugate*, Art Gallaher*, John H. Garvey*, Joseph Hamburg, Curtis E. Harvey*, S.
Zafar Hasan*, Vigil W. Hays*, Raymond R. Hornback, Clyde L. Irwin, H. Douglas Jameson,
Keith H. Johnson*, Wesley H. Jones, John J. Just*, Thomas P. Lewis, Marcus T. McEllistrem,
Marion E. McKenna*, Ernest Middleton, Dorothy A. Miller, John M. Mitchell, Elbert W.
Ockerman*, Merrill W. Packer, Doyle E. Peaslee*, Alan R. Perreiah*, John J. Piecoro*,
Deborah E. Powell, Herbert G. Reid*, Joseph M. Ripley*, Paul Roark, Charles Rowell,
Wimberly C. Royster*, Robert W. Rudd*, Gerardo Saenz*, John S. Scarborough*, Robert G.
Schwemm, Paul G. Sears*, Ronald J. Seymour, Gary Shenton, D. Milton Shuffett*, Otis A.
Singletary*, Julie Skaggs, John T. Smith, Harry A. Smith, Tim Smith, Wade C. Smith,
Sheldon M. Steiner, Ralph E. Steuer, Marjorie S. Stewart*, Anne Stiene—Martin, Jon Shephard,
Joseph V. Swintosky, Lee T. Todd, Harold H. Traurig, Relmond VanDaniker*, William F.
Wagner, M. Stanley Wall, Marc J. Wallace, Kennard W. Wellons, J. Robert Wills*, Patch G.
Woolfolk*, Robert C. Zumwinkle*

The minutes of the meeting of December 10, 1979, were approved as circulated.

' Chairman Krislov made the following remarks:

"I have six comments to make. The first item is to thank you
for your suggestions for the Academic Area Advisory Committees.
We know that our memo came late but some of you have responded. Be—
cause Professor Wagner has been ill, we haven't made our nominations.
If any of you want to avail yourself of the opportunity to make sug-
gestions, please do so. The Committee will be meeting the latter
part of this week. If you still want to make nominations for the
Academic Area Advisory Committee, we solicit you and we thank you
for your suggestions.

The second item has to do with the General Studies Committee.
We have been at work on a specific charge to that committee, and we
drafted a tentative charge. We solicit your comments. For those
of you who are particularly interested, we have about twenty—five
copies here. You may secure one after the meeting or wait until the
minutes come out. Let me read to you the five questions which we
will be presenting to the General Studies Committee.

7"Absence Explained

 

 Should all baccalaureate degree programs have some common core
requirements? Why?

If ”yesfl

what shall the objectives of such a common core be?

Do our existing general studies requirements fulfill these ob—
jectives? How?

What changes would the committee recommend to fulfill these
objectives? Why?

If the answer to question (1) is ”no,” do we simply allow each
college to establish its own academic requirements? Are there
other alternatives?

Item three is that we have an Ombudsman Search Committee
functioning. It is chaired by Professor DeLuca in Pharmacy. He
will be soliciting you for suggestions, and we invite you to be
thinking about that.

Item four is another search committee. The President asked
the Senate Council for suggestions for the Undergraduate Dean
Search Committee. We compiled a list on Friday, and will be send—
ing it to the President. He will be naming this committee, which
will be soliciting names for Undergraduate Dean. We invite you to
think about that and make recommendations.

Item five has to do with the rules interpretation. As you
know, under our rules the Rules Committee is the final arbiter of
differences in opinion about the rules. The Rules Committee func~
tions daily and has been making a number of rulings and, of course
these rulings become precedents for future situations. Unfortunately,
they are not largely publicized. We have been thinking about how
to publicize them and Professor Canon of the Rules Committee this
year called our attention to a particularly important rule interpre—
tation. The Council thought we should make some effort to acquaint
you with the rule. Perhaps both this oral presentation and a memo
which will go to the Chairmen and the Deans on this will be the
mechanism.

In this particular case an instructor alleged that a student
cheated. The instructor was leaving the campus and was not too ac—
quainted with our procedures. He read the rules and decided the
simplest way to handle the problem would be to delegate to the
Chairman of the Department the task of recommending the penalty.

He then left campus. When the chairman received the delegation,

he recommended a penalty and the student appealed. The Rules
Committee held that the instructor cannot delegate to a Chairman
the responsibility in this situation. We suspect that this will be
a guideline for many classes and courses in which there are several
instructors, part—time instructors and graduate students. Chair—
men and Deans should be aware of this ruling because if there is
any delegation, obviously there will be no way of upholding any
kind of punishment.

 

 -3-

The last item which will probably warm the hearts of the
Medical Center is that we will be putting on the Senate floor
in March and April the long—awaited standards for patient care.
Because this involves many substantive matters, we plan to pre—
sent it in March for discussion and for a vote in April or May.
The Student Affairs Committee will be meeting in an extraordi—

nary session at the end of February in order to get on the floor
in March or April.

Those are the six items I have. If there are any questions

or comments, I will be happy to respond to anything that isn't
clear."

The first order of business was the honorary degree candidates. The Senate recom—
mends to the Board of Trustees the Candidates for an honorary degree. The Chair said
that the names were a secret because the awarding came from the Board of Trustees. The
Chair recognized Dean Margaret Jones from the Graduate School who presented the candi-

dates. Following Dean Jones‘ presentation, the Senators voted to accept the two
candidates for recommendation to the President.

The Chairman recognized Professor Daniel Reedy for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of the
proposed addition to the University Senate Rules, Section VI, 2.0, The Academic Ombudsman.
This proposal was circulated to members of the University Senate under date of January 29,
1980. The Chair recognized Professor McAdams for a presentation on the proposal. Pro—
fessor McAdmas said that the proposal seemed self explanatory, but he would answer any
questions. The Chair then recognized Ombudswoman Jean Pival.

Professor Pival spoke to the Senate as follows:

”This proposal came originally from Jane Emanuel, my predecessor.
It is a problem in the Ombudsman's Office if we get cases for appeals
after a year has passed. Sometimes we have cases that go back several
years, and it is almost impossible to track down people involved in
the cases. Under the present rule we have no way of saying to a
student that we cannot investigate this. With the new rule we could
say 'you have passed the Statute of Limitations.‘ I am very much
in favor of the amendment."

A question was asked concerning the year in which to hear grievances rather than a
semester. Professor Pival said that there was a question as to what would constitute a
semester. Some professors might interpret summer to be a semester. Also, if a student
went the departmental channels first, sometimes it took a whole semester.

There were no further questions or discussion, and the proposed change passed unani—
mously and reads as follows:

Background: .
It is desirable to have a statute of limitations so that records and informa—

tion be available. The proposal has been reviewed and approved by the Vice
President for Student Affairs, the Dean of Students, the Academic Ombudsman,
the Student Government President, the Senate Student Affairs Committee and
the University Senate Council.

 

 Proposgd Addition: Section VI, 2.0

Statute of Limitations — The Academic Ombudsman is empowered to hear only
those grievances directed to his/her attention within 365 days subsequent
to the conclusion of the academic term in which the problem occurred.
However, the Ombudsman may agree to hear a grievance otherwise barred by
the Statute of Limitations in those instances where (l) the Ombudsman be—
lieves that extreme hardship including but not limited to illness, injury,
and serious financial or personal problems gave rise to the delay or

(2) all parties to the dispute agree to proceed.

 

Implementation Date: Summer, 1980.

Note: The proposed addition will be forwarded to the Rules Committee for
codification.

The Chair again recognized Professor Daniel Reedy for a motion. On the recommenda—
tion of the Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards with the approval of the Senate
Council, Professor Reedy moved the approval of the proposed change in University Senate
Eglgs, Section VI, 1.1 and 1.2, Information about Course Content and Standards. This
proposal was circulated to members of the University Senate under date of January 29, 1980.

The Chair recognized Professor Reed who was Chairman of the Committee that made the
changes. Professor Reed recognized Ombudswoman Pival for an amendment. Professor Pival
moved to add a sentence to the Rule VI, 1.1 to read:

”Whenever factors such as absences or late papers will be weighed
heavily in determining grades, a student shall be so informed.”

The Chairman said that the amendment had been accepted by the Committee and asked
Professor Reed to give the rationale of the proposal. Professor Reed said that the stu—
dents favored the rule and the faculty felt something was needed but there were problems
with the terminology such as standards and criteria. The Committee hoped this proposed
change would get rid of the difficulty that might arise, and at the same time allow the
faculty sufficient freedom, particularly in graduate courses.

Professor Gesund said that he didn't understand what grading practice meant and
wasn't sure that grading practice had any meaning at all that anyone could understand in
the legal sense. He added that if the Rule VI, 1.2 were deleted then the instructor did
not have to follow the grading system described in the catalog. Professor Pival said that
there had been a lot of confusion on the part of both faculty and students about the
catalog description on grades. She added that there was a general description of what
the letter grade meant. Professor Ivey said that he could not understand what the debate
was about because the rule had been on the books, and all the students were asking for
was to have the information in writing. He said that the faculty had been required to
give the information for a number of years so why was there a sudden fear of putting it
in writing.

Dean Langston spoke against the amendment and said that he had been opposed to the
''in writing” rule but now the Senate had gotten away from that and back to things that he
felt were important. Then the Senate wanted to tack a sentence on that trivalized the
proposal. He felt students should be expected to attend classes and get papers and work
in on time without having to be told. Professor Pival said that the reason she asked
that the statement be put back was that many appeals involved borderline grades. She
said that she felt if the decision were whether or not a student got a higher or lower
grade, then the student had a right to know.

 

 _5_

Professor Gesund requested that the two parts of the recommendation be separated
so that a vote could be taken separately amending Rule 1.1 and whether or not Rule 1.2
should be deleted. He said he had strong reservations about deleting all references to
the grading system in the catalog.

The Chair ruled to divide the motion. Professor Ivey moved the previous question,
it was seconded, and passed. The first part of the recommendation passed. The Chair
said that the second part would be Professor Gesund's request to change Rule VI, 1.2 to
retain the first sentence which was in 1.1 and that would be redundant, so it would not
be necessary. Professor Gesund moved that Rule VI, 1.2 be amended to read:

"A student has the right to expect that the grading system
described in the University Catalog will be followed.”

The motion was seconded.

The Chair reminded the Senate that the grading system which the faculty adopted
was in the Senate Rules under Section V, 1.0 and those rules are reflected in the
catalog. The Chairman said that he was not certain what the effect of the amendment
would be. Professor Schwert said that he didn't think the description of the general
grading system would be removed from the catalog and no matter how vague the informa-
tion might be it wasn't going to disappear so he felt the change was redundant.

The previous question was moved, seconded and passed. The amendment failed to pass.
After further discussion the previous question was moved, seconded and passed. The
second part of the recommendation to delete Rule VI, 1.2 passed. The proposed change
reads as follows:

Background:

At the September Senate meeting, 1979, this matter was referred to the
Committee of Admissions and Academic Standards.

The Committee concluded that:

1) Rule VI, 1.2 in its present form is unclear and contains
a number of specifications likely to create continuing prob—
lems of interpretation.

2) Rule VI, 1.1 as amended will allow the faculty sufficient
freedom, particularly in graduate courses, while still serving
students' needs.

Recommendation:
1) Rule VI, l.l should be amended to read:

Information about Course Content: A student has the right to
expect the course to correspond generally to the description
in the official catalog of the University of Kentucky and

the right to be informed in writing at the first or second
class meeting about the nature of the course——the content, the
activities to be evaluated, and the grading practice to be
followed. Whenever factors such as absences or late papers
will be weighed heavily in determining grades, 3 student

shall be informed.

 

 

 ~6—

2 Rule VI, 1.2 should be deleted.

Implementation Date: Summer, l980.

Note: The proposed change will be forwarded to the Rules Committee
for codification.

The Chair again recognized Professor Daniel Reedy. Professor Reedy, on the recom—
mendation of the Committee on Academic Organization and Structure, moved approval of
the agenda item, Recommendation to the Administration regarding appointment and retention
of administrative officers at the college, school and department level. The Recom—
mendation was circulated to members of the University Senate under date of January 31,
1980. Professor Reedy brought to the Chairman's attention that the Recommendation was
submitted without action of the Senate Council.

The Chair recognized Professor Grimes who presented the proposal on behalf of
his committee. Professor Grimes said that last year the Committee on Academic Organi—
zation and Structure under Professor Harris' leadership examined the issue and recom—

mended to the Senate Council two recommendations that were circulated on January 31,
1980.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Lienhard spoke
strongly against the recommendation. He said that he felt a monster was being created.
He suggested that if a problem existed in setting up a search committee then that
problem should be solved within the college and suggested that the additional bureaucra—
tic waste not be imposed on everyone. Professor Reedy said that it was difficult to
speak in contrary to the motion without being placed in a position of being against

democratization. He said there was concern expressed in the Senate Council that should
be shared. There are units in the University that are so small in which the Chairman
chairs a faculty of three people. There are questions not answered by the motion.
There are some units who would not on their own attempt to better the quality of that
unit. He said his most serious question was who would vote for the individuals and

who would stand as a candidate. He felt there were issues that deserved consideration.

Professor Jewell said that he felt one responsibility the Dean had was to try to
upgrade the department and to try to get an honest evaluation. He said that he was not
enthusiastic about the first Recommendation, but he would be in favor of the second one
so perhaps they could be voted on separately. He said that he would be interested in
getting verification on whether or not it was the standard practice of the University
for the Deans to get statements from tenured members before appointments are made.

The Chairman responded that he was not in a position to answer the question. Pro-
fessor Grimes responded that he could not answer the question for the Committee, but he
could speak in the position as a faculty member. He said that his experience sug—
gested to him that when there were academic units that were marginal then there are
academic units trying to change that statement.

After further discussion the previous question was moved, seconded, and passed.
The Chairman said that the question was whether the Recommendation of the Committee
should be adopted and recommended to the Administration. The Chair ruled to divide the
Recommendation.

The first Recommendation passed with a hand count of 52 to 22. The second Recom—
mendation passed with a hand count of 63 to 6. The Recommendations will be forwarded
to the Administration for consideration and read as follows:

 

 Background:

The Academic Organization and Structure Committee under Professor Harris'
leadership developed these proposals during the academic year 1978—79.

They were forwarded to the Senate Council, which solicited reactions from
the deans. Four favored the proposals, four responded negatively and one
was non—committal. The Council raised several questions with the Committee
but the Committee felt that its proposal was basically sound. The proposal
is brought to you without any action by the Senate Council.

Recommendations:

1) It is recommended that the following statements be incorporated
in the Administrative Regulations of the University of Kentucky.
(Sections AR II, 1.0—6, Review and Evaluation of Educational
Units, and AR II, 1.0—8, Procedures for Search Committees for
Chief Administrative Officers of Educational Units, as appropriate).

 

At least two members of any committee formed to review an edu—
cational unit and/or to search for a new administrative officer
for the unit at the college, school, or departmental level shall
be elected faculty members of the unit. The election shall be
supervised by the Senate Council in the case of a college, and
by the Dean in the case of a school or department. Additional
faculty members may be appointed to the Committee.

In the Governing Regulations Part VIII, Ar3, page 29, line 4,
it is recommended that the phrase "or reappointment" be inserted
to read as follows:

Recommendations on the appointment or reappointment of chairmen
of academic departments or divisions shall be accompanied by
written statements from at least the tenured members of the
department or division. »

The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

Martha M. Ferguson
Recording Secretary

 

 Charies L. Atcher
Archives
4 King Library