xt702v2cc18r https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt702v2cc18r/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1982-02-08  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 8, 1982 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 8, 1982 1982 1982-02-08 2020 true xt702v2cc18r section xt702v2cc18r UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY


January 26, 1982

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday, February
8, 1982 at 3:00 p.m. in room 106, Classroom Building.




Approval of the minutes of October 12 and December 7, 1982.

Remarks of the Chairman.

Action Items:

a) Presentation of Honorary Degree candidates: W. C.
Royster, Dean, Graduate School.

b) Proposed Change in the University Senate Rules, V. -
1. 8. 2'(Withdrawal Rule) and V. ~4. 3.1 (English Require—
ment). (Circulated under date of January 26, 1982.)

c) Proposed Senate policy relative to the notification of
students when classes are to be dropped. (Circulated
under date of January 27, 1982.)

d) Report from the Committee on Organization and Struc-
ture recommending that the Department of Community Med-
icine, College of Medicine, be changed to Department of
Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health, College of
Medicine, with an appropriate change in mission. (Circu-
lated under date of January 25, 1982.)

Elbert W. Ockerman




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, February 8,
l982, in Room lO6 of the Classroom Building.

James Kemp, presiding

Members absent: M. M. Ali, Paul J. Amatuzzo, Harry H. Bailey, Charles E. Barnhart,
William H. Blackburn, Jack C. Blanton, James A. Boling*, Stuart Bretschneider, Britt
Brockman, James Buckholtz, Joseph T. Burch, Michael D. Carpenter*, It—Keong Chew*,

John Conklin*, Donald Coonrod, Gary L. Cromwell*, Philip H. Crowley*, Guy M. Davenport*,
George Denemark, David E. Denton, Philip A. DeSimone, Marcus L. Dillon, Joseph Dougherty,
Herbert N. Drennon, Phillip A. Duncan*, Anthony Eardley, Roger Eichhorn, Charles H. Fay*,
Paul G. Forand*, James W. Freeman*, Wilbur W. Frye*, Joseph Fugate, Richard W. Furst,
James L. Gibson, Charles P. Graves*, Thomas C. Gray*, Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hasan*,
Roger W. Hemken*, Debbie Hertelendy, Andrew J. Hiatt*, Donald Hochstrasser, Raymond R.
Hornback, Charles Hultman, Michael Impey, LaVonne Jaeger, Keith H. Johnson*, Cheryl
Jones, Peri Jean Kennedy*, Edward J. Kifer*, Shea Lair*, Thomas P. Lewis, Tony McAdams,
Martin McMah0n*, H. Brinton Milward*, George E. Mitchell, Jr.*, John M. Mitchell,
Patricia Montgomery, Robert C. Noble, P. J. O'Connor*, Elbert W. Ockerman*, David J.
Prior*, Peter Purdue*, Herbert G. Reid*, Phillip Roeder*, Jon M. Shepard*, D. Milton
Shuffett, Timothy W. Sineath, Otis A. Singletary*, John T. Smith, David A. Spaeth*,
William Stober, John Thompson, Charles Wethington*, Nadine Wright*

The Minutes of the Meetings of October l2, l98l,and December 9, l98l,were approved
as circulated.

Chairman Kemp began the meeting with the following remarks:

”We welcome you to this, our first Senate meeting of l982. We
hope you are off to a good start for the semester. If you read the
papers or watch or listen to the electronic media you know that a lot
is going on that will affect us. We hope for the best.

I know that the sap is beginning to rise and spring can't be
too far away as many of my colleagues in the College of Agriculture
have made their annual pilgrimage to the meetings of the Association
of Southern Agricultural Scientists. Those poor fellows, including
several members of the Senate, are now in Orlando in their misery.
Another sign of spring is that the University Senate is again consider—
ing the withdrawal rule. I have been a member of the Senate a lot of
the time since it was formed and we have changed the rule many times
so in order to be traditional we will deal with it again today.

There are a few items of information I wish to pass along to
you. If you remember, the Senate at its September meeting, passed a
resolution expressing concern about the requirements for keeping a
detailed record of time and effort expended on projects financed by
federal grants as spelled out in OMB Circular A-2l entitled “Cost
Priorities for Educational Institutions." The resolution which was
adopted was sent to the OMB by George Gaddie, acting secretary of the
Senate. A reply was received from the OMB and from Senator Huddleston's
office. Also a copy of a proposed revision of Circular A—2l, which
has been published in the Federal Register was received. This proposal,
according to Serge Lang, a Professor of Mathematics at Yale University,



who has been fighting the regulation, is no better, and in some cases,
worse, than the existing regulation. Comments on the regulation can
be sent to Washington. A copy of the proposal and the address of the
place to send comments are available in the Senate Council office,
Room l0, Administration Building. We have only about 3 more weeks

to make comments so if you are interested come by the Council office,
read the proposal, and make comments if you desire.

A second item of information deals with a proposal by the De—
partments of French and German and approved by the Graduate Council
and the Senate Council that the doctoral programs in those areas be
listed by the Council on Higher Education as "Registration Voluntary
Suspended.“ The reason for listing them this way is so they can be
reinstated, if the need arises, without going through all the pangs
of establishing new programs.

A third item deals with the upcoming Senate elections. Martha
Ferguson will be sending out the first ballot within a few days. As
you know the number of Faculty Senators will be reduced over a three
year period until it settles down at 85. This means that there will
be fewer than normal Senators elected this year. Also, since some
units have all or almost all the Senators elected in the same year,
some of those elected this year will serve a two year or possibly a
one year term. Those getting the highest number of votes will get
the three year terms, and on down the line. By doing this a more
balanced group as far as experience is concerned will make up the
Senate. The details of this will be on the second ballot.

Chairman Kemp recognized Professor Fletcher Gabbard who presented the following
Memorial Resolution on the death of Professor Wendell Carden DeMarcus.

Wendell Carden DeMarcus, l924—l982

Wendell Carden DeMarcus, Professor in physics and astron—

omy at the University of Kentucky, died at his home on January 9,

With his good friend and lifelong colleague, Rupert Wilt
at Yale University, DeMarcus did pioneering work on the composi—
tion and properties of the giant planets, Jupiter and Saturn.
While at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, before joining UK
in l957, DeMarcus became interested in the separation of isotopes
using centrifuge methods. It was in connection with such prob—
lems that he was asked to join a select committee of scientists
to work with the late Nobel Laureate, Lars Onsager. His princi-
pal interest was in astrophysics and his research interests
included neutron physics, isotope separation, plasma physics,
and rarefied gas dynamics. Among his many scientific publica—
tions is ”Composition of the Planets” which appeared in the
Handbuch Qer Physick, an encyclopedia of current scientific
knowledge. It is one of his most acclaimed works.


 At the University of Kentucky, and especially during his
early days in the l960's, Professor DeMarcus was known as one of
the most stimulating and active teachers in the University. He
was active in the Honors Program and attracted the attention
and affection of many students and colleagues.

DeMarcus was master of the mathematical methods of physics
and he derived a great joy from solving and in helping others
to solve the mathematical problems originating in the efforts of
scientists to describe the workings of physical systems.

DeMarcus graduated from the University of Kentucky in l947
and received the M.S. and Ph D. degrees from Yale University.
The Ph.D. degree was conferred in l95l.

During his career, he was a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical
Society of London, a member of the American Physical Society, a
member of the American Astronomical Society, and a member of the
International Astronomical Union. Honors included membership in
Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Pi Sigma, Pi Mu Epsilong, and Sigma Xi. In
l965, the College of Arts and Sciences bestowed its highest aca—
demic honor, that of Distinguished Professor, on DeMarcus. He
also received the honors of the Alumni Research Award in l959,
membership on the Onsager Study Group and membership in the
Commission on the Physics of Planets of the International Astro-
nomical Union. Over the years, there were numerous invitations
for invited lectures.

He was a member and Vestryman of the Church of the Good
Shepherd, Episcopal.

DeMarcus is survived by his wife, Barbara Bond DeMarcus, and
two daughters, Cynthia Lynn and Lisa Ann.

Wendell was a bright and friendly fellow who cared very
deeply for his friends, students, and colleagues. He is and will
continue to be missed by those who knew him well. He cannot be
replaced for he was one of a kind. His loss leaves us poorer
and reminds us of the mortality of even the best among us.

Mr. Chairman, I request that this be spread upon the minutes
of the University Senate and a copy sent to Mrs. Barbara DeMarcus.

(Prepared by Professor Fletcher Gabbard, Chairman, Physics and Astronomy Department)

Chairman Kemp directed that the Resolution be made a part of these minutes and
that a copy be sent to Mrs. DeMarcus. The Senators were asked to stand for a moment
of silence in tribute and respect to Professor Wendell Carden DeMarcus.

The Chairman recognized Professor Donald Leigh for a resolution. Chairman Kemp
stated that the resolution had the signatures of ten (l0) Senators and was being
brought to the floor. Since the resolution did not have a ten—day circulation the
motion was moved, seconded and approved to waive the rule.



Professor Leigh moved the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Senate advises the Administration to:

l. Appoint an Acting Director of the Computing Center to
temporarily fill the vacated position of the Director, and

Consider a revision of the position of Director of the
Computing Center from a purely Administrative Position

to a joint Administrative-Faculty Position, much like that
of the Director of Libraries, and

Appoint a Search Committee, that would include several

Rationale: during the fifteen—year or so tenure of the present
Director of the Computing Center, the computer related activities
of faculty and students have greatly expanded, both in academic
research and instruction. The interaction between faculty and
students with the Computing Center is direct, much like that with
the library system. Because the number of users is increasing and
the nature of available computing equipment is always changing,
there will continue to be ”growing pains” associated with computing
services. We, therefore, believe that in order to appreciate
academic as well as administrative computing the Director should
have a faculty background and a tenured faculty position.

Professor Leigh said that the resolution was precipitated by the appearance in
the "Blue Sheet“ of the notification of the vacancy of the position with the require-
ments of a 8.5. plus five years of experience. The notice also appeared in “The
“Chronicle on Higher Education.” The faculty members were asking for this revision

of the position as a purely administrative appointment to one much like the Director
of Libraries.

In the discussion which followed Associate Vice President Sands said the Computing
Advisor for the Committee on Academic Affairs had asked him to report that they endorse
the resolution. The University Senate ad hoc Committee on Computer Facilities of the
Academic Facilities Committee also endorsed the resolution.

Vice President Clapp said that he wasn't sure he understood completely what the
resolution called for but to the extent the resolution said the administration should
be looking for someone with a faculty background for the position, then they were in
complete agreement. To the extent they were talking about the need for consultation
with the Advisory Committee about individuals being considered for the position, that
was part of the plan. To the extent that they were talking about a fundamental change
in the nature of the unit then he felt the resolution should be spelled out more
clearly. He added that as he read the proposal there was no unit such as the resolution
indicated. He said if that were part of the proposal it would require a change in the
Governing Regulations by the Board of Trustees and he felt the delay was not needed at
the present time. As he understood the proposal he felt he could not be supportive of
a change in the Governing Regulations.

There was no further discussion and the resolution passed unanimously.



Chairman Kemp recognized Dr. Margaret Jones of the Graduate School for the pre—
sentation of the honorary degree candidates. Dean Jones said the names were to be
kept confidential because the awarding came from the Board of Trustees. Following Dean

Jones‘ presentation, the Senators voted to accept the four (4) candidates for recom—
mendation to the President.

Chairman Kemp recognized Professor Donald Ivey for a motion from the Senate
Council. Professor Ivey presented the Revised Proposal relative to the Freshman
English rule and the Withdrawal Rule, V. 4.3.l and V. l.8.2. He said that the Senate
Council presented the recommendation but recommended disapproval of the change. This
proposal was circulated to members of the University Senate under date of January 28,
l982. Professor Ivey said that if the Senate disapproved, the Council had substitute
recommendations that were circulated on January 26, l982.

Chairman Kemp recognized Professor Robert Hemenway, Chairman of the English
Department,who spoke to the Senate concerning the Proposal Relative to the Freshman
English Rule.

Professor Hemenway spoke to the Senate as follows:

”I want to thank Professor Kemp and the Senate for inviting me to
address you on this issue. I want to make it clear that I am not here
to protect some kind of turf. The only turf at stake in this meeting
is the concern for student writing skills, and I don't think that is
something only the English Department is concerned about, nor do I
think it is something only the English Department should be concerned
about. But I am here because the issues being discussed will have a
direct effect on the teaching, scheduling and financing of freshman
composition at the University. It will have a direct effect on the
7,700 students that we teach during a normal year in 360 to 375 classes.
From my point of view, as Chairman of the English Department, there
are four questions we can ask about the Committee on Academic Standards'
recommendation that students only be permitted to drop freshman Eng—
lish for non—academic reasons. First of all, why are we discussing the
proposal? Secondly, is the proposal a good one? Third, what will be
the effects of adopting the Committee on Academic Standards' proposal,
and finally what would be the effects of adopting some other recommenda-
tion, such as the one the Senate Council has already distributed?

First of all, why are we discussing it? The answer is because
two Senate Rules conflict. There's one rule that says one can't with—
draw, and there's another rule which says that one can withdraw. It
has taken awhile for people to find out that the conflict is there.
What the Committee on Academic Standards proposes is to simply close
that legalistic loophole. It says that one can withdraw only for non—
academic reasons such as illness, financial trouble, and family problems.

Is the Academic Standards' proposal a good one? I believe it is
because it formalizes the way we do things now. I honestly feel the
present system is designed to protect student rights, and it has done
a pretty good job of it. We have a number of things we need to improve
in freshman English, and we are working very hard to try to do so. But
I don't think our system for protecting student rights has been failing.



How do we protect student rights in freshman composition? Here

is what we say to students. (l) Senate Rules prohibit withdrawal.
(2) You have a drop-add period where you can take care of schedule
conflicts, or a case of instant dislike for your freshman composition
instructor. As a matter of fact, we process sometimes up to l,000
drop-add transactions. (3) We also state in writing on our freshman
composition policy statement, if you have a grievance, the Freshman
Composition Director will investigate it. The Freshman Composition
Director has the authority, if he finds the grievance justified, to
let the student transfer to another section. We average about five
requests each semester under that grievance procedure.

The second major reason the Committee on Academic Standards'
proposal is a good one is because it provides for the student taking
freshman English in the freshman year-—where it is meant to be taken.
The idea, as I understand it, is that the University Senate and the
University faculty want to establish a certain minimum level of writ-
ing competency before the student goes on to advanced work. Conse—
quently, freshman English is the only course in the University which
is required of all students. The writing competency the course
addresses is the only academic standard which applies to the writing
skills of the students. Therefore, freshman English is obviously a
unique course, and I don't think it is inappropriate to ask that it
have a unique withdrawal policy.

What would be the effects of adopting the Committee on Academic
Standards' proposal? The answer is that we would continue to protect

student rights as we do now. The student will complete freshman
English and will do so usually in the freshman year. The academic
standards of the University will be affirmed, and we will be saying,

as a faculty, that good writing is so important to this University

that we don't think it is an academic standard which can be compromised
in any way.

On the other hand, what will be the effects of other proposals,
even one which permits limited withdrawal? There are two effects,
one academic and one administrative and financial. Academically,
what would be the effects of letting students drop? If the goal behind
the requirement is improving writing and writing competency, how can
anyone's writing be improved when he/she is not in class? Administra-
tively, the whole question would be how many would likely drop? There
are 7,700 students a year in freshman composition. If one percent
dropped that would be 77 students, or three sections. If five percent
dropped that would be 385 students, or l5 sections. You can also figure
in other variables in those computations, such as students' resistance
to the course, and the pain involved in trying to improve one's writ—
ing. I am in favor of the Committee on Academic Standards' recommenda—
tion that students not be permitted to drop for anything other than
academic reasons. I think it maintains academic standards, it avoids
a complicated and costly withdrawal procedure, it protects student
rights and it does not make the University's one universally required
course more difficult to teach or more costly to staff."



Chairman Kemp thanked Professor Hemenway for his remarks. The floor was opened
for questions and discussion.

Dean Baer said that the Senate had heard the academic reasons stated for approving
the proposal on the floor and he wanted to emphasize those, but he also pointed out
administrative reasons for approving the proposal. The alternate proposal which is to
be introduced if this one is defeated would first of all be very difficult to enforce.
There were 4600 students enrolled in the Fall l98l. The drop rate was approximately
three percent. Most of those were for non—academic reasons. He said that freshman
English courses were not totally funded. A large proportion of the money which goes
into freshman composition courses is from non—recurring funds. He didn't feel the
Senate should make its decision purely on administration but should take the academic
needs of the student into account and the impact on other academic programs. He urged
the proposal on the floor to be approved.

Professor Krislov wanted to know why the Senate Council objected to the proposal.
Chairman Kemp said the Council deliberated quite a bit and after finding that the
withdrawal policy applied to any student, the Council felt the English Department had
not gone by the rules for the last two years. The Council passed this through the
Rules Committee and it was decided that the rule as written categorically says that any
student may withdraw. An additional reason was that the Council felt students should
have some say in this and making a rule whereby a student cannot withdraw is making
one too rigid because there are many reasons why a student may wish to withdraw. He
added that the proposed rule made it almost impossible for a student to withdraw if
he/she didn't like the instructor. The main reason was because of the rigidity of the
rule. Professor Ivey said there was a difference in the interpretation of the Senate
Rules. On the January 28 circulation it states, ”A full-time student must enroll in
Freshman English each semester until he has satisfied the requirement....“ He said
enrolling was different from completing the course.

Bob Walker supported the proposal and didn't feel it was as rigid as some people
felt it was. He said there were opportunities for the student to withdraw. He felt
English was the one thing students came to the University to take. Student Senator
Leslie said that the students she had talked with agreed with the Council and not with

the Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards. She urged the Senators to agree
with the Council.

Professor Rees asked the Chairman to review for the Senate the percent of the
teaching faculty for the freshman English courses who were full time, part time and
those who were graduate students. Professor Hemenway responded that there are l60
sections of freshman English for the present semester. Ten are taught by full—time
faculty and split about evenly between graduate students and part—time faculty for
the other lSO sections. The average teaching experience for part-time instructors
in the English department is nine years. All part—time instructors have a masters
degree. Sixteen percent have a Ph.D.

Professor Crabb reminded the Senate that the English Department did take care of
lots of adjustments for student from one section to another. He added, however, those
who withdraw, might not be any better off than those who continue but those who continue
even if they fail that semester, are in far better shape for the next semester.

Professor Todd said he didn't see a conflict in the rules where it stated two semes-
ters of freshman English are required and a full—time student must enroll in freshman
English. Under those circumstances a student has an option to drop. He felt that
since there is only a three percent drop presently, what was the reason for changing



the rule. Professor Canon answered the question as Chairman of the Rules Committee.
He said that the language literally stated, ”A full-time student must enroll in fresh-
man English.” However, rules are intended to mean something. If there were no con—
flicts with the rules, the requirement would be that a student would enroll and stay
in freshman English, but he said there was a conflict.

Professor Smith said that the English Department was strongly encouraging students
not to drop or discouraging their dropping. He felt the English Department had been
effectively enforcing the rule as it was being proposed. He felt what the Senate was
doing was to make it legal for the English Department.

Professor Bostrom said that the English Department argued in favor of their own
uniqueness but would other departments next year argue for their uniqueness. He didn't
feel English was any more unique than other departments. Professor Olshewsky spoke in
favor of rigidity. He felt a factor in favor of rigidity was that freshman English
was a remedial program for students who were supposed to have that type of competence
before they arrived at the University. He felt students should be able to read and
write and should learn to do so before the second year of college so he favored the
committee's proposal. Professor Adelstein said that freshman English was a different
kind of course, and he felt if the recommendation on the floor was not supported the
standards would be lowered and would be changing the policy operated on for years. He
felt the public relations aspect must be considered.

The previous question was moved, seconded and passed. The Chair stated if the
Senators voted yes they were voting against the report because the recommendation was
that it not be approved. If the Senators voted no they were voting to approve the
proposal. After the Senators disagreed, the Chair consulted with the parliamentarian
and ruled that if the vote were y§§_it would be for the report and ng_would be against

the report.

The report from the Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards passed and
reads as follows:


V. 4.3.l ”Two semesters of Freshman English or their equivalent
are required of each student unless he demonstrates
competency according to the exemption plans specified
in the catalog. Only in unusual circumstances will a
student be permitted to withdraw (for reasons stated
in V. l.8 3 with the approval of the Dean of his college.
A full-time student must enroll in Freshman English each
semester until he has satisfied the requirement unless . .“

[Notez add underlined portion.]

”Any student may withdraw from any class (except for
those used to meet the Freshman English requirement;
see V. 4.3.l) before the midpoint of the term." [Notez
add underlined portion.]

Professor Wilson asked for a clarification. She said that the Senate had accepted
the report but it did not mean the report was automatically put into the Senate Rules.
She said that a motion was needed to say what the freshman English rule would be.
Motion was moved, seconded and passed to put the report into the Rules.


 Chairman Kemp recognized Professor Donald Ivey for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Ivey, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recompended approval of the
proposed Senate policy relative to the notification of students when classes are to be

dropped. This proposal was circulated to members of the University Senate under date of
January 27, l982.

There was no discussion and the motion which passed unanimously reads as follows:


This proposal is an outgrowth of the mandate of the Senate to the
Senate Council (see Minutes of the University Senate, December 7,
l98l) to bring back to the Senate a proposed policy in regard to
notifying students if a class is to be dropped. The term “ex—
pected” is used rather than a term such as ”must“ as it is recog—
nized that the policy is not altogether enforceable. In addition
to the rule, the Registrar's office is studying the possibility
of programming the computer to put a statement on class schedules
of students pre—registered in low enrollment classes. A mechan-
ism can be developed, according to Ruby Watts in the Registrar's
office. However the details have yet to be worked out.

Proposed Policy:

The dean, or the dean's designated officer is expected to notify
students of decisions to cancel classes by the first class meet—
ing or earlier.

The Chair again recognized Professor Ivey for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Ivey, on behalf of the University Senate Council presented a report from
the Committee on Organization and Structure recommending that the Department of
Community Medicine, College of Medicine, be changed to Department of Preventive
Medicine and Environmental Health, College of Medicine, with an appropriate change
in mission. This report was circulated to members of the University Senate under date
of January 25, l982. Professor Ivey said that the Council was presenting the
committee report to the Senate without recommendation and requesting the Senate to
accept the report, not approving it, not taking action on it, simply accepting it. If
the Senate accepted the report then the Council had some action items based upon the
report. Professor Ivey called the Senate's attention to a change in the second

paragraph under “Background" in the second sentence. Community Health should be changed
to Comnunity Medicine.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Krislov wanted to
know what would happen if the Senate rejected the report. Chairman Kemp said that the
action item would still be on the agenda. The report was accepted unanimously.

Chairman Kemp recognized Professor Donald Ivey for a Proposal to change the name
and mission of the Department of Community Medicine, College of Medicine, to the
Department of Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health, College of Medicine. This
Proposal was circulated to members of the University Senate under date of January 28,
l982. The Senate Council recommended approval of the Resolution on Page 4 of the
Senate Agenda Item: Community Medicine. He said the Resolution grew out of the Committee
Report in the January 25 circulation.



The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Schwert said that the
Committee Report had been adopted and now the Senate was being asked to vote on quite a
different extension of business of recommending the Senate Council initiate a review.

He asked Parliamentarian Smith to rule on that point. Professor Ivey said the Senate
did not adopt the report. The Senate accepted the report but did not approve it.

Parliamentarian Smith said the Senate received a reportand the Chair ruled that
Professor Ivey's presentation was correct.

Professor Schwert said there was still difficulty in understanding what Deans of
Colleges were supposed to do in conjunction with the Senate Rules. Professor Just said
that in his view this was not the first time admissions and names of departments in the
Medical College have been changed without coming to the attention of the Senate. He

felt it was time to try to coordinate changes in the Medical School with the rest of the

Professor Smith pointed out to the Senate the rule the Senate Council felt had
been violated was “Recommend to the President on the establishment, alteration and
abolition of educational units in the University.“ He said that was not a Senate Rule but
was a part of the Governing Regulations of the University.

Professor Wagner asked about Dr. Schwert's January 30, l98l, letter to President
Singletary expressing the Council's concerns in Community Medicine. Professor Grimes

read the letter. (The letter is on file in the Senate Council Office, Room lO, Adminis—
tration Building.)

Vice President Bosomworth said from his perspective he felt there was an honest
difference of interpretation and opinion with regard to the role and responsibility of
academic administrators and the role and responsibility of the Senate. It was his view
that the faculty in the Department of Community Medicine agreed in writing to relocate
in other departments as a result of the recommendation to merging from the May l980