xt7w9g5gfm33 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7w9g5gfm33/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1970-03-02  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, March 2, 1970 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 2, 1970 1970 1970-03-02 2020 true xt7w9g5gfm33 section xt7w9g5gfm33 945

i
I, ,
l
g
E
';

I

‘h

l

i’
f
(

 

 

   

Minutes of the University Senate, February 9, 1970

In any event, these are the things that are in the wind —— the
currents that are now at play. They all have, to some effect, im—
portance for us and implications for us, and even at the risk of
delaying your meeting longer than you might have wished, I thought
that you probably would be interested in hearing from me of-what
some of these issues are, where they are, and how they are going.
That has been my intention, and to the degree that you have found
it, in any way, enlightening, I am delighted. Thank you very much.

President Singletary was given a standing ovation by the Senators.

The Senate adjourned at 5:25 p.m. to meet next at 4:00 p.m., Monday,
February 16, 1970.

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, MARCH 2, 1970

The University Senate met in special session at 4:00 p.m., Monday, March
2, 1970, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Dr. Thomas R. Ford,
Secretary of the Senate Council, presided since the Chairman and Vice Chairman
Were unable to attend. Members absent:

Clifford Amyx*, Daniel S. Arnold*, Robert Aug*, Richard C. Birkebak*, Barry J.
Bloomfield, Collins W. Burnett*, Clyde R. Carpenter*, Robert E. Cazden*, Donald

B. Coleman, Carl B. Cone*, Robert L. Cosgriff, Raymond H. Cox, George F. Crewe*,

T. Z. Csaky*, David E. Denton, Ronald W. Dunbar*, Frederic J. Fleron, Jess L.
Gardner*, James L. Gibson, Stephen M. Gittleson*, Herbert Green, J. W. Hollingsworth*,
James F. Hopkins*, Mary F. James*, Louis J. Karmel, Robert W. Kiser*, Nancy Lair*,
Albert S. Levy*, Rey M. Longyear*, Richard Lowitt*, Leonard McDowell*, L. Randolph
McGee*, William G. Moody*, Theodore H. Mueller*, Thomas M. Olshewsky*, Albert W.
Patrick*, Doyle E. Peaslee*, Nicholas J. Pisacano*, William K. Plucknett*, J. G.
Rodriguez*, Sheldon Rovin*, John W. Schaefer*, Ian Shine*, Malcolm R. Siegel*,

Gerard E. Silberstein*, Robert H. Spedding*, Robert Straus*, David R. Wekstein*,
Harry E. Wheeler*, David C. White*, Raymond P. White*, Daniel W. Wingard, Donald

J. Wood, Lawrence A. Allen, Charles E. Barnhart, Harry M. Bohannan, Glenwood L.
Creech, Marcia A. Dake*, Robert M. Drake, Jr.*, Stuart Forth*, Harold D. Gordon,

Jack B. Hall*, Joseph Hamburg, Ellis F. Hartford, Raymon D. Johnson*, Taft McKinstry*,
Elbert W. Ockerman*, Wimberly C. Royster, George J. Ruschell, Doris M. Seward,

Otis A. Singletary*, Eugene J. Small*, Joseph V. Swintosky*, William R. Willard*,

Ernest F. Witte.

The Senate approved the requests of Jeannie Leedom and Jerry Lewis, Kernel
reporters, Ken Weaver, Kernel photographer, and Avery Jenkins, Public Relations
(UK News Bureau), to attend, report, and photograph. The Senate also permitted
Josh O'Shea, an undergraduate student, to present a petition.

The minutes of the regular meeting of February 9, 1970, were approved as

circulated.

*Absence explained

 

 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
   
  
   
 
 
  
 
  
  
   
  
  
  
   
  
    

 

 

 

 

 

       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
   

2892 Minutes of the University Senate, March 2, 1970

On behalf of the College of Education, Dean George W. Denemark presented
a Resolution on the death of Dr. William J. Tisdall with the recommendation
:i that the Senate accept the Resolution and that it be transmitted to Mrs.
‘ Tisdall with an expression of deepest sympathy. The Senators stood for a
1: moment of silence in tribute to Dr. Tisdall and in acceptance of the Resolution. ‘

 

1
‘ 1 William J. Tisdall
I

. The College of Education lost one of its most personable and pro—

’53 fessionally competent members when Bill Tisdall died of a heart attack :
" on January 16, l970. Nearly half of his 40 years were devoted to studying (
exceptional children and training their teachers. 1

MEMORIAL RESOLUTION [
?
I

With three degrees in special education from the University of \
Illinois, he held faculty appointments at the Pennsylvania State University, I
University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Kentucky. Although 1
his students will have recollections of the dynamic way in which he fig
conducted his classes, he will be remembered professionally for his (17'
involvement in numerous innovative projects in our field. Among these
were included the first high school level class for EMR children in ‘
Champaign, Illinois; the first study of productive thinking in f

!

 

 

 

retarded children; the first large scale study of the feasibility

of early school admission for gifted children; the first comprehensive
examination of the effect of type size on reading achievement in partially—
seeing children; the first study on divergent thinking in blind children;
one of the first special education instructional materials centers; the
first residential school for culturally disadvantaged gifted children; the {
first chairman of the special education department at the University '
[z of Kentucky; and most recently, the first project to train Peace Corps

: Volunteers in special education.

x/n.

 

As a member of the University of Kentucky's College of Education ‘

faculty, Dr. Tisdall was one of the most active members of the University (
community. Through his efforts to bring all of the university's re- .
sources to bear on solving the problems of the less fortunate, he served é§
as Chairman of the President's Committee on University Facility for '( \

Handicapped, an interdisciplinary group working toward the development

of a center to study the problems of children who could not afford

private medical care. He also served the University as a member of

the President's Advisory Committee on Buildings and Campus Development,

the University Senate, the Board of Directors of Lincoln School, the

. Search Committee of the University Art Gallery, the Committee on Faculty

Involvement in Public Relations, and over a dozen committees in the 3
College of Education. 1

 

His professional service extended far beyond the campus of the 2
University of Kentucky as a Research Consultant to the Research Division
of the Bureau of the Handicapped of the U. S. Office of Education, a
Research Consultant to the Department of Mental Health of the Common-
wealth of Kentucky, a Member of the Committee on Certification Standards
for Teachers of Emotionally Disturbed Children, a Consultant to the
Legislative Committee on Efficiency and Economy of the Kentucky Legislature,
and as a Program Consultant to numerous school districts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 “ ‘-: 1km p-u‘pplné-Q“L- ”my

   
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
 
 

Minutes of the University Senate, March 2, 1970

Under Dr. Tisdall's leadership the Lincoln School idea became
a reality. His involvement in its founding earned him the respect
and admiration of fellow professionals years his senior; but more im—
portantly his scholarly activities in the area of the gifted, dis-
advantaged were acknowledged throughout the nation.

Dr. Tisdall's enthusiasm and tireless efforts on behalf of the
Lincoln School were key factors in the successful development of the
program. Faculty and students were especially close to ''Dr. T"

‘ because of his sincerity and friendliness. It was a heart warming
1 experience for all who shared his friendship, knowledge, and ex—

: pertise, while he served as Director of the school and chairman

! of the Board.

 

I Although the loss of his professional presence will be felt

i by many, this cannot compare with that felt by those who were pri—

: vileged to know him personally. He was an accomplished musician,
an avid pilot and boatsman, a fanatical chess player who would on

‘flgg occasion stoop to subterfuge to win, and a conversationalist who
[17 was at home in Virtually any type of situation. His wry, yet often
irreverent, wit and storehouse of stories were either a source of

1 delight or of consternation.

May the University Senate accept this resolution in respect for
f a life devoted to teaching and in deepest sympathy with his Wife and
friends. The joy and vitality he brought to us will be missed by many.

Since Dr. Ford was serving as chairman, Dr. Timothy Taylor presented
a recommendation that the Senate approve a change in the Rules of the
University Senate (Revised and Updated July, 1969), page 17, Changes in
Courses, sub—head a. This proposed change had been circulated to the
faculty under date of February 18, 1970. The Senate approved the re—
commendation as circulated, which is as follows:

a. New courses and programs, and changes in courses and programs
A . are recommended to the college faculty by the academic unit
& -, £3 _ most immediately connected with the course or program. The
‘ proposals are circulated to members of the college faculty by
the initiating academic unit at the time of submission.

  
 
   

TfiFOllowing permission by the Senate to permit any member of the ad

oc Committee on Appropriate Balance Among Teaching, Research and Service
3 JFunctions in the University to speak to the Report, the Senate resumed
conSideration of the report of that Committee which had been placed on
the floor in the Senate meeting of February 9, 1970 for acceptance and
transmittal to the President, and to which the Senate had made one

amendment.

 

\1

Following diSCussion, amendment was made and approved to change the last
I sentence in the first paragraph under Mechanism and Implementation Procedure

on page 18 of the Report to read as follows:

" . This mechanism is in operation in some academic units.

It is recommended for general implementation.

 

 

 

 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
    

 

 2894 Minutes of the University Senate, March 2, 1970

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At this point in the consideration of the Report Mr. Josh O'Shea presented
the following petition to the Senators:

We, the students of the University of Kentucky, fully support
the recommendations of the ad hoc Committee on Appropriate
Balance Among the Teaching, Research and Service Functions in
the University. Implementation of these recommendations is
necessary to the improvement of the educational system at the
University.

Mr.O'Shea stated that the petition had been signed by 1,900 students in the
University without aid from the Kernel or any other organization that
might have given it publicity. The Senators applauded the petition.

After further discussion of the Report an amendment was made to delete all
material in the Report beginning on page 15 to the end of the Report. The
Senate defeated this amendment.

Motion was made to amend the third line in the second paragraph
under ”THE MODEL" at the top of page 16, to delete the phrase ". . . or
individual projects. ." The Senate approved this amendment.

Motion was made to amend the last sentence in the second paragraph
under ”THE MODEL" at the top of page 16, to add the phrase ”. . . the
department has the responsibility .” so that the sentence reads
". The chairmen ultimately have the responsibility of discussing with
the departmental faculty their individual roles in the departments' efforts
and goals, and the department has the responsibility of providing the nec—
essary decisions so that the goals may be attained in the most effective
manner.” The Senate approved this amendment.

Motion was made to amend the first sentence of the first paragraph under
”THE MODEL" on page 15 of the Report to delete the first three words,
"Individual faculty members ." and substitute the words ”Departmental
faculty .”

Motion was then made to amend this amendment to change the first sentence
to read:

Individual faculty members or faculty of academic units initiate
and review programs of instruction, research, and service that are
believed necessary and/or desirable within their area of specialization
(department) and make recommendations concerning these through their
chairmen to the director of their school and/or the dean of their
college ”

The Senate approved the amendment to the amendment.

The Senate then approved the amendment, as amended.

 

   
 
    
   
    
    
   
  
     
   
  
    
  
     
  
  
 
   
  
  
   

z

lg
(

 

    
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
   
      
       

 

l
{

 

Minutes of the University Senate, March 2, 1970

A recommendation was presented to substitute the following Report for
the Report of the ad hoc Committee on Appropriate Balance Among Teaching,
Research, and Service Functions in the University:

Each faculty member should be provided with the opportunity to
discuss the division of his activities with the cognizant administrative

officers.
The Senate defeated this recommendation.

By a vote of 75 to 35 the Senate then accepted the Report as amended, for
transmittal to the President of the University. The Model in the Report,
as amended and accepted, reads as follows:

THE MODEL

Individual faculty members or faculty of academic units initiate
and review programs of instruction, research, and service that are believed
necessary and/or desirable within their area of specialization (department)
and make recommendations concerning these through their chairmen to the
director of their school and/or the dean of their college. The dean
and directors consider the various recommendations submitted from the
component departments in light of the roles of their college and generate
a college-wide program embracing those programs necessary to the dis-
charge of the responsibility of that college. In turn, the dean's re—
commendations of programs are reviewed by the Vice—President for Academic
Affairs and/or the Vice-President for Research to form the recommendations
for the entire University; these recommendations in turn are reviewed by
the President and the Board of Trustees of the University.

Acting with knowledge of budgetary considerations and the defined
goals to be achieved by the University, the President discusses with
the vice—presidents which programs or activities are to be initiated, con-
tinued, or curtailed and reaches decisions on the basis of the best in—
formation available to him. The Vice—presidents in turn repeat this pro—
cess with the appropriate deans. The deans and directors similarly dis—
cuss with the chairmen the programs, activities and responsibilities of
the various departments and provide the necessary decisions where
appropriate. The chairmen ultimately have the responsibility of discussing
with the departmental faculty their individual roles in the departments'
efforts and goals, and the department has the responsibility of providing
the necessary decisions so that the goals may be attained in the most

effective manner.

In this process, however, such bodies as have been delegated special
responsibilities —— e.g., the Senate, the college faculties, or specially
created committees or commissions —- are involved as their roles relate
to decisions under consideration, providing counsel to the administration
or making such decisions as are required under the charges given them.

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes of the University Senate, March 2, 1970

Assumptions Inherent in the Model

 

This model is fundamental to staffing the University and dis—
charging the responsibilities of the University. As it must, the
model assumes (I) that without faculty initiative, programs are un—
likely to be successful, (2) that recommendations will be based on
careful considerations and logical decisions about the program needs
and priorities, and (3) that decisions similarly will be the result
of adequate consultation and thorough consideration regarding the
programs and any limitations necessarily imposed; i.e., decisions
will be arrived at in a just manner.

In the final analysis, reliance must be placed upon the faculty
members and the chairman of each unit to achieve a proper balance in
each unit and articulate this balance at the next level. The re—
sponsibility for maintaining some appropriate University—wide balance
must lie with the deans and higher administrators, and with bodies
which have been charged with the responsibility for certain kinds of
decisions —— e.g., the Senate and the college faculties —— in matters
related to their respective charges. General policy decisions
regarding University-wide balance are ultimately made and implemented
through negotiation extending downward through vice-president, college,
and school levels, for example, to departments and individual faculty
members.

The ultimate general allocation of resources in terms of University-
wide balance is top administrative responsibility in the model and
is one to be implemented through counsel at all levels.

Assignment of Roles and Balances

Within this model, it is possible to define the role of the
University and assess an appropriate balance among the instruct-
ional, research and service functions of the University. It is
possible further to establish these same features for every ad-
ministrative unit at every level. But it is expected that there
will be a rather substantial variation in the balances within
each of the departments constituting a school or college, even as
there will be within the colleges. Further, it is conceivable that
these balances will be modified with time. We believe it is un—
desirable to specify an unalterable balance of the various functions
for each individual unit or for each individual facutly member of
the University.

Mechanism and Implementation Procedure

However, within the model described, it is possible to recognize
a suitable mechanism to reach decisions concerning appropriate
balance at the departmental level. This mechanism is in operation
in some academic units. It is recommended for general implementation.

 

   
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
   
  
  
  
 
     

 

  

 ‘ ": «:2- :-...,..v... v.—,-vauswum.wwu-w. . — a ._ ..— .

   
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
   

Minutes of the University Senate March 2, 1970

Upon definition of departmental goals in consultations between the
department chairman and the school director or dean of the college, the
chairman will request that each faculty member of his department submit
a plan representing the individual's request for a balanced load believed
appropriate to him, one which could fall within the ranges possible con-
sidering departmental goals and balances.

 

 

After review and careful consideration of the departmental program
and seeking of any additional advice desired, e.g., that of a departmental ‘
executive committee, the chairman would arrange assignments of duties §'
for the next academic year. Subsequent evaluation of the individual "
. faculty member for merit increases and promotions would be based on an
I assessment of his performance of the assignment for the year.

A Application of Model

 

I
In application of this model, the committee makes the following 1
recommendations: 1
l

€¥gh l) The concern in seeking appropriate balance should be toward %‘!&
having the University emphasize programs adapted to the circum- ‘3 V

{ stances of its setting and resources. While such circumstances
will change from time to time and the University's program emphases,

therefore should be changed, the essential responsibility of a

university, to generate and disseminate knowledge, should be kept 1 3

central. 1 y,

2) In light of its special role, the University should emphasize
research comparatively more than do other universities of the state.
. It does not follow, however, that the University of Kentucky should
l attend any less to teaching and service functions.

3) Balance among the three functions should be effected by negotiation
among the various levels of administrative and academic units of the

/ University, as described in the model, so that, insofar as possible,
the institution may continue as an adaptive system, responsive to
changing needs and potentials within and around it. {A

 

 

4) The negotiation process should effect balance by shaping the

assignments of individual faculty members at the departmental level. ‘

V Assignments should be initially defined at the recruitment—procurement " ‘
stage, and may be redefined through negotiation in light of changing

. exigencies year by year. Annual appraisals of faculty should reflect

r the adequacy of individuals in fulfilling their respective assignments.

 

 

5) The evaluation of the individual faculty member for purposes of
promotion should be based on an assessment of his performance of his
assignments.

’ These recommendations can be epitomized in the words "flexibility" and
"integrity”. In some instances the criteria for promotion and merit increase
at the University of Kentucky may have been applied too rigidly. The committee
recommends that greater flexibility be required in the applications of the
criteria for effective research, teaching and service. At the same time,

     

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

2898 Minutes of the University Senate, March 2, 1970

the University community must have confidence that its administrators
and faculty members will respect these standards in negotiating
emphasis in faculty assignments, in accordance with the University's
functions as described in this report.

The Senate adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

Kathryne W. Shelburne
Recording Secretary

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, MARCH 9, 1970

The University Senate met in regular session at 4:00 p.m., Monday,
March 9, 1970, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Plucknett
presided. Members absent:

Clifford Amyx, Robert Aug*, Lyle N. Back*, Henry H. Bauer*, Wendell E. Berry*,
Harmon C. Bickley, Jr.*, Richard C. Birkebak*, Barry J. Bloomfield, Herbert
Braunstein*, Wallace N. Briggs*, Clyde R. Carpenter, Donald B. Coleman,
Robert L. Cosgriff*, Raymond H. Cox, George F. Crewe, William H. Dennen,
David E. Denton*, D. F. Diedrich*, John P. Drysdale, Ronald W. Dunbar,

Fred Edmonds*, Irving Fisher, Ira Fowler, Herbert Greene, Joseph J. Gruber*,
Virgil W. Hays*, Dorothy Hollingsworth*, J. W. Hollingsworth*, Vernon

L. James*, Louis J. Karmel*, William F. Kenkel*, Carl E. Langenhop,

Albert S. Levy*, John L. Madden*, Gene L. Mason*, Leonard McDowell*, Marcus
T. McEllistrem*, William G. Moody*, Dean H. Morrow*, Jacqueline A. Noonan*,
Leonard V. Packett*, Harold F. Parks*, Albert W. Patrick*, Robert W.

Penman, Curtis Phipps, Nicholas J. Pisacano*, Leonard A. Ravitz*,

John W. Roddick*, John W. Schaefer*, Rudolph Schrils*, D. Milton Shuffett*,
Malcolm R. Siegel, Raymond A. Smith*, William G. Survant*, Thomas A. Van*,
Harwin L. Voss, John N. Walker*, David R. Wekstein, David C. White*, Cornelia
B. Wilbur*, Daniel W. Wingard, Donald J. Wood*, Kenneth R. Wright, Lawrence
A. Allen, Charles E. Barnhart, Harry M. Bohannan, Betty J. Brannan*,
Glenwood L. Creech, Marcia A. Dake*, Stuart Forth*, Timothy R. Futrell*,
Harold D. Gordon, Charles P. Graves*, Joseph Hamburg, Raymon D. Johnson*,
William S. Jordan, Jr.*, Taft McKinstry, George J. Ruschell, Otis A.
Singletary*, Sheryl G. Snyder, John L. Sutton, Joseph V. Swintosky*,

William R. Willard*, Ernest F. Witte*.

The Senate approved the request of Jeannie Leedom of the Kernel
to attend and report.

The Secretary of the Senate presented the supplemental list of
degree candidates who had completed requirements in December, 1969. This
supplemental list had been circulated to the faculty under date of
February 3, 1970. The Senate approved the supplemental list as sub—
mitted for recommendation to the Board of Trustees.

 

   
 
 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
    
    
   

 

l

44‘

  
     

 [MWVERSHY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY 40506

TIhAN OE ADMISSIONS AND REGISTRAR

AI‘MISSIONS
ORIENTAYSOIV
RECORDS

SCHOOL RELATIONS

February 23, 1970

MEMO RAN DUM
TO: The University Senate
FROM: Secretary, University Senate
A special meeting of the University Senate has been called for

Monday, March 2, 1970 at 4:00 p.m. This meeting will be held in the
Court Room of the Law Building.

The purpose of the meeting is to continue consideration of the
report of the ad hoc Committee on Appropriate Balance Among Teaching,
Research and Service Functions in the University; proposed change

in the Rules of the University Senate with respect to procedures to
be used in courses which are not housed in departments, as circulated
under date of February 18, 1970.