xt70p26q2b7d https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70p26q2b7d/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1985-10-14  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, October 14, 1985 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 14, 1985 1985 1985-10-14 2020 true xt70p26q2b7d section xt70p26q2b7d LHMVERSHY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
IO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 30 September 1985

TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
October 14, 1985, at 3 p.m. in ROOM 116 of the THOMAS HUNT MORGAN
BUILDING.
AGENDA:

Minutes of 9 September 1985.

Resolutions.

Chairman's Announcements.

Annual Report of Faculty Trustee (Professor Jim Kemp)

ACTION ITEMS:

a. Proposal to amend Section I, 2.2.3 of the University
Senate Rules to add Director of Undergraduate Admissions
to the list of BE officio, non-voting members of the
University Senate. (Circulated under date of 27
September 1985.)

Proposal to amend Section I, 3.1.2 of the University
Senate Rules to limit elected faculty membership on the
Senate Council to no more than eight from any sector.
(Circulated under date of 25 September 1985.)

Proposed changes in Section V, 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the
University Senate Rules pertaining to class attendance,
completion of course assignments, and excused absences.
(Circulated under date of 26 SEptember 1985.)

 

Randall Dahl
Secretary

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, OCTOBER 14, 1985

The University Senate met in regu1ar session at 3:05 p.m., Monday, October
14, 1985, in room 116 of the Thomas Hunt Morgan Bui1ding.

Brad1ey C. Canon, Chairman of the Senate Counci1, presided.

Members absent: Frank A11ana, R. A. A1tenkirch*, Char1es T. Ambrose,
Char1es E. Barnhart, Susan M. Be1more, Raymond F. Betts, Dibaker
Bhattacharyya*, Tex Lee Boggs, Peter P. Bosomworth, Danie1 J. Breazea1e, D.
A11an Butterfie1d*, Emmett Costich*, George F. Crewe*, Kenneth v. Davis,
Stephen C. Deger*, Leo S. Demski*, Robert Dennis, Marcus Di11on, Richard C.
Domek*, Herbert N. Drennen, Pau1 M. Eakin*, Anthony Eard1ey, Stan1ey Fe1dman,
Ni1bur w. Frye, Richard w. Furst, F1etcher Gabbard, Art Ga11aher, Jr.*,Mari1yn
D. Hamann*, Robert E. Hemenway*, Dona1d Hochstrasser, A1ison Hodges, Raymond
R. Hornback, Gregg Hovious, A1fred S. L. Hu, Susan Johnson, John J. Just, Jay
T. Kearney, Robin Lawson, Robert G. Lawson, Edgar D. Maddox, Pau1 Mande1stam*,
Kenneth E. Marino*, Patrick J. McNamara, H. Brinton Mi1ward*, Michae1 T.
Nietze1, Robert C. Nob1e*, Merri11 w. Packer*, Richard Perkins, Leonard K.
Peters*, Robin D. Powe11, Peter Purdue, Frank J. Rizzo*, Thomas C. Robinson,
Gera1d A. Rosentha1, Char1es Sachate11o, Edgar L. Sagan, Timothy Sineath, Otis
A. Sing1etary, Marcia Stanhope*, Louis Straub*, Kenneth R. Thompson, Marc J.
Na11ace, Constance P. Wi1son

Approva1 of the Minutes of September 9, 1985, was postponed unti1 the
meeting of November 11, 1985.

The Chairman made the f011owing remarks:

"I want to make one announcement which concerns the resu1ts of the
Senate Counci1 Nominating Ba11ot. The senators who received sufficient
votes to be on the second ba11ot are Char1es T. Ambrose, Emmett Costich,
Robert E. Hemenway, Wi11iam E. Lyons, Loys T. Mather, Madhira D. Ram,
and James H. We11s. There wi11 be three e1ected to take office in
January. The ba11ot wi11 be distributed in the next week.

Let me make a few remarks on the progress of the Swift Committee
Report. As you know, it recommended significant revisions in the Genera1
Studies Curricu1um. The committee issued this report 1ast Apri1 and it
has received wide distribution around campus. Last month the Senate
Counci1 asked a11 persons wishing to comment on the Swift Committee re—
commendations to do so by ear1y October. Nine facu1ty members as we11
as some members of the Swift Committee spoke to the Senate Counci1 on
October 2, and the Counci1 has received another ha1f dozen or so com-
munications in writing. Most of these persons have suggested some
changes in the Swift Committee proposa1s. Some are re1ative1y minor and
some are of major consequence. The major ones pertain to (1) reducing
the number of hours in the genera1 studies program, (2) e1iminating the
1anguage requirement, (3) de1aying the cross—discip1inary component and
a11owing for more technica1 and information courses to be put in the
cross-discip1inary component and (4) de1aying the cross-cu1tura1 course
component.

*Absence Exp1ained

 

 The Senate Counci1 wi11 consider these suggested amendments and
other comments we have received and wi11 meet this coming Wednesday,
October 16. I doubt if we wi11 finish our de1iberations this Wednesday
given the magnitude of the importance of the proposed changes in the
Swift committee report and we wi11 probab1y spend most of our schedu1ed
meeting on October 30 a1so considering the comments and suggested
changes in the Swift Committee proposed requirements. We wi11 a1so need
to consider the feasibi1ity report which we have received from
Chance11or Ga11aher. Perhaps we can finish on the 30th and circu1ate
the report to the Senate as an action item in time for the November 11
Senate Meeting. However, it is 1ike1y that other pressing Counci1
business or de1ays in reso1ving some of our questions re1ated to the
genera1 studies requirements wi11 make it impossib1e to get the exact
1anguage of the Swift Committee Report and Senate Counci1 suggested
changes, if any, to the f1oor in time for the November Meeting. If that
becomes the situation, we p1an to have the Swift Committee revisions and
some of the suggested a1ternatives put on the agenda for the November
meeting as a “For Discussion On1y" item. I know the Senate brief1y
discussed the Swift Committee Report 1ast Apri1, but at that time the
report had been circu1ated on1y to Senators and on1y very recent1y. It
had not yet been distributed to the facu1ty or to the students in gen—
era1. Moreover, near1y a11 of this year's student senators and one—
third of the facu1ty senators are new1y e1ected and thus were not privy
to 1ast Apri1's discussion. Beyond that, none of the suggested a1terna—
tives to the Swift Committee's recommendations had yet been formu1ated
or advanced. For this reason a "For Discussion On1y” session next
month, if it comes to that, wou1d make consideration of the proposa1
revisions as an action item in December much easier.

The Chairman recognized Professor James Kemp, one of the two facu1ty
members serving on the Board of Trustees. It is traditiona1 for an annua1
report to be given at the October Senate Meeting by one of the two trustees.
The other facu1ty Board member is Professor Constance Ni1son.

Professor Kemp‘s remarks fo11ow:

”I appreciate this opportunity to report the activities of the fac—
u1ty members, Connie Ni1son and myse1f, on the University of Kentucky
Board of Trustees. This has been a rather busy and interesting year for
the Board.

As review I might state that Facu1ty Trustees have a11 the privi-
1eges of the non facu1ty trustees except to vote on sa1aries. Since
individua1 sa1ary figures for the facu1ty never come to the Board,
a1though they wou1d be avai1ab1e if we asked for them, this does not
pose much of a restriction.

The Board meets either in fu11 or in executive committee ten times
a year with four meetings being statutory meetings. A11 members are
invited to the Executive Committee meetings and may participate in dis—
cussions but on1y the Executive Committee has voting privi1eges.
Occasiona11y, an Executive Board Meeting may be cance11ed and occa—
siona11y an extra meeting of the fu11 board or the Executive Committee
may be ca11ed. This happened ear1ier this year when the Department of
Energy decided to not renew its contract with the IMMR.

 

 The Board has several standing committees and ad hoc special
committees. Two special committees on which I have—EeFVEd this year
were the so—called "Merger Committee” in which we studied the situa-
tion, conducted hearings and made a recommendation on the feasibility of
merging the governing boards of the University of Kentucky and the
University of Louisville. As you know, our recommendation was against
the merger.

The second special committee in which I was involved dealt with an
investigation of the reasons why the Department of Energy cancelled its
contract with the University's Institute of Mining and Minerals Research
(IMMR) to conduct research for the D.O.E. We interviewed various UK
administrators, former administrators, D.O.E. personnel, etc., to get
various viewpoints. The committee worked ”after the fact” so we were
not attempting to get the contract back for this year but were attempt—
ing to find reasons for the cancellation and to possibly recommend that
guidelines be established that would help prevent such actions in the
future. We delved into the reason for the management decision that Mr.
George Evans made to sever the relationships between UK and the D.O.E.
The report of this committee is part of the minutes of the September
meeting of the Board of Trustees.

In addition to the regular meetings and committees of the Board,
Connie and I are busy in other ways. We are on an advisory committee to
the Council on Higher Education. The committee is more advisory in name
than in function. We have had a few meetings at the Council's office in
Frankfort. These usually consist of briefings by the staff of the CHE.
Several meetings have been scheduled and then cancelled. We have the
feeling that they don‘t really want advice.

We also are invited to and expected to attend various University
and off—campus functions including ground breaking ceremonies (example —
the Gluck Equine Research Center) dedication of buildings (example - the
Sturgill Development Building), receiving of gifts (example — the Gaines
gift for the Humanities and Honors Program), public meetings, such as
the annual banquet of the conference on Christians and Jews, the Chamber
of Commerce Banquet when UK was the honored "Business of the Year” and
the pre-homecoming game banquet of the Alumni Association. We are also
involved in pre—athletic events, such as helping host the members of the
legislature, meetings with U of L trustees prior to UK — U of L basket-
ball games.

We are asked to participate or are given the opportunity to express
our opinion on various topics. For example, Connie recently appeared
before and gave a report to the CHE at their public hearing when they
were discussing the proposed strategic plan for higher education. Sub—
sequent to the last board meeting I was on the "hot seat” when the Ag
Student Council had a meeting to discuss the possible sale of Coldstream
Farm and the effect it might have on the teaching program in the College
of Agriculture. We get a lot of calls, questions and suggestions on
various things - one of the latest is the effect of the proposed revi—
sion in the General Studies Component of the Curriculum on various
academic programs. Since the faculty trustees are ex officio members of
the Senate Council and the Senate, they are questiOHEd_6fi‘ffiis from more
than one angle.

 

 One of the things I enjoyed when I was first on the Board was the
pre-Board meeting luncheons where we looked at the agenda and had open
and often controversial discussion on various issues. The press was not
present so the discussion was open and off—the—record. Since the
"Sunshine Law" requires that such meetings be open to the public the
discussions now deal mostly with ”small talk" and friendly banter.

As a faculty member of the Board I have been impressed by the
dedication and loyalty of the various members of the Board. They take
their work seriously and work for the good of the University. It is
interesting to know that successful business people, who have slightly
more financial resources than most faculty, still have worries and
problems and still are good red—blooded Americans and Kentuckians just
like the rest of us. I believe the University is in good hands with its
trustees.

I've enjoyed visiting with you and will respond to questions if you
have them."

There were no questions from the floor and the Chairman thanked Professor
Kemp.

The Chairman asked Professor Ward Crowe, a member of the Senate Council,
to make the Senate Council motions for the Chairman—elect, Professor Wilbur
Frye. The Chair recognized Professor Crowe for the first action item on the
agenda which was the proposal to amend Section I, 2.2.3. Professor Crowe, on
behalf of the Senate Council, moved to amend the University Senate Rules to
add Director of Undergraduate Admissions to the list of ex Officio, non-voting
members of the University Senate. This proposal was cirEUlated to members of
the senate under date of September 27, 1985.

 

The Chairman indicated that this proposal would amend both the University
Senate Rules and Part IV of the Governing Regulations which specifies the
composition of the University Senate. Therefore, if passed, it would not be
implemented until approved by the Board of Trustees.

 

Professor Rea pointed out that line eight under llVoting" should be ”Deans”
rather than ”Dean." The Chairman agreed to the editorial change.

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

Proposal: [addition is capitalized and underlined]

2.2.3 Ex Officio Membership

 

Voting:

The ex officio voting members shall number l2. In
academic years beginning with an even number (e.g.,
l982-l983, l984-l985), this group shall be composed of
the following: Chancellor for the Medical Center, Vice
Chancellor for Research and dean of the Graduate School,
Director of Libraries, Associate Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs for the Lexington Campus, and Deans of

 

 the Colleges of Allied Health Professions, Architecture,
Communications, Dentistry, Education, Engineering, Law,
and Social Work. In academic years beginning with an
odd number, the ex officio voting members shall be the
following: ChancETlor for the Lexington Campus,
Chancellor for the Community College System, the
President of the Student Government Association, and the
Deans of the Colleges of Agriculture, Arts and Sciences,
Business and Economics, Fine Arts, Home Ecomomics,
Library and Information Science, Medicine, Nursing, and
Pharmacy. (US:lO/12/8l and Bosz4/6/82)

Non-Voting:

The ex officio non-voting membership shall include the
President, all other vice presidents, University System
Registrar, DIRECTOR OF UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS, Dean of
University Extension:_Dean of Students, Professor of
Military Science, Professor of Aerospace Studies, and,
if they are not already elected members of the Senate,
the University System faculty members of the Board of
Trustees, the Academic Ombudsman, the Director of the
Honors Program, and the chairmen of the University
Senate Committees, including University Senate Advisory
Committees. All officials mentioned in the preceding
paragraph who are not voting ex officio members in any
year shall be considered non—voting ex officio members.
Other ex officio non—voting members may 5e added by the
University Senate Council for the purpose of supplying
information and viewpoints on problems considered by the
Senate. Ex officio non—voting members shall enjoy all
privilege§”bf the elected membership except the right to
vote. (US:lO/12/8l and BofT:4/6/82) (US: l2/lO/84)

 

Background:

The former office of Registrar and Dean of Admissions has been di-
vidied into two separate offices: Registrar and Director of
Admissions. The Registrar continues to serve as the Secretary of the
University Senate and as an ex officio non-voting member. The
proposed addition will simply—formalize the ex officio non-voting
status of the Director of Admissions. __

Implementation Date: Upon approval by the Board of Trustees.

The Chair rocognized Professor Nard Crowe. Professor Crowe, on behalf of
the Senate Council, moved to amend Section I, 3.l.2 of the University Senate
Rules to limit elected faculty membership on the Senate Counc1l to no more
than eight from any sector. This proposal was circulated to members of the
senate under date of September 25, l985.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Rea wanted
to know if ”sector” was defined. The chair said sector was defined in the
Governing Regulations. A senator wanted an explanation of what the sectors
were. The Chairman said the Lexington Campus was one sector and the Medical
Center was the other sector and basically the proposal was to insure minimal

 

 

 representation from both sectors. Professor Gesund wanted to know what an
appointed member was. Chairman Canon said if a member resigned prior to the
end of his/her term the chair of the Senate Council is obligated to appoint
the person who got the next highest number of votes in the preceding elec-
tion. The chair said there was no discretion involved in the appointment.

There was no further discussion and the motion to adopt the amendment to
the Senate Rules passed unanimously and reads as follows:

Proposed addition is capitalized and underlined below

 

3.l.2 Composition
lhe Senate Council shall be composed as follows: the
elected membership shall include nine (9) members chosen by
and from the faculty membership of the University Senate and
two (2) members elected by and from the newly elected stu-
dent membership of the University Senate; the student and
faculty members of the Board of Trustees, who, if they are
not elected members of the Senate, and the immediate past
Chairman of the Senate Council shall be ex officio non-
voting members. Six elected members shaTT constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business. (US: 10/10/77)

(a)Elected Faculty Membership

 

Eligibility for Membership-—Any elected member of the
Senate (or person appointed to replace an elected

. member) whose term of office has not expired at the time
of the election shall be eligible for election to the
Senate Council, except that no more than three of the
elected members of the Council shall be from any one
college, NOR EIGHT FROM ANY ONE SECTOR. Council members
are not eligible to succeed themselves until a lapse of
one year from the expiration of their terms, except that
appointed members who have served no more than one year,
if otherwise eligible, may be eligible for election.
The duration of the term of membership on the Council
shall not be affected by the member's term on the Senate.

 

 

If at any time during the term of a member of the
Council he or she should become ineligible for mem-
bership in the Senate, his or her position on the
Council shall be declared vacant.

Rationale:

lhe Senate Council proposes that Section I-3.l.2(a) of the
Senate Rules be amended to insure that at least one member of
the Senate Council come from the Medical Center Campus and one
from the Lexington Campus. There is some danger of the Medical
Center not being represented on the Council at some future
point, perhaps as early as next spring. There are currently two
members from the Medical Center, however, one's term expires
this fall and the other has indicated his intention to take
leave from the University at the end of the fall.

 

 For both symbolic and practical reasons, it is important to
have Medical Center representation on the Council. Since
roughly 30% to 40% of the Council's business relates to the
Medical Center, the advice and counsel of members from that
sector are needed. In addition, with the separation of UK into
two sectors and with the CHE considering an option of completely
separating the Medical Center from the UK system, arguments for
a separate Medical Center Senate or even for complete detachment
of the Center will be enhanced if it is not represented on the
Council.

Generally, the Medical Center has had at least one member on
the Council and at times even two or three. (However, in l973,
there was no Council member from the Medical Center.) To insure
continued minimal representation, the Senate Council proposes
amending Rule I-3.l.2 (a) to insert the wording: "nor eight from
any one sector" in the eligibility paragraph. This language
fits in with the existing spirit of the paragraph which en—
courages a diversity of representation on the Senate Council
through limiting the membership from a particular college, but
does not seek strict proportional representation.

Proposed Implementation: Immediately.

 

The Chair recognized Professor Hard Crowe. Professor Crowe, on behalf of
the Senate Council, moved adoption of the proposed changes in Section V, 2.4.l
and 2.4.2 of the University Senate Rules pertaining to class attendance, com-
pletion of course assignments, and excused absences. This proposed change was
circulated to members of the senate under date of September 26, l985. Pro—
fessor Crowe said that at the present time there is no rule which recognizes a
student's illness or death in the immediate family as a reason for missing
class. He felt that is the prime motivation behind the proposed change.

 

The Chair recognized Professor Charles Byers, the Ombudsman, who gave some
background about the problems the Office of the Ombudsman has had with the
student complaints about the lack of an absence policy.

Professor Byers' remarks follow:

Professor Byers said Frankie Garrison had done the work but
he was the one that got to present the report. The Office has
had a total of forty—six complaints from students over the last
two years related to absences. He did not know how many were
made to faculty or how many did not go to the Ombudsman's
Office. Out of those forty—six the office classified twenty-
four (24) into medical or emergency types of complaints. There
were four (4) complaints that related in the area of death.
There were ten where the instructor had a set absence policy,
but still some difficulty arose even though there was in the
syllabus a criteria. There were three where there was a
University policy and those related to band and trips. There

 

 were five (5) where the instructor had a policy but still diffi-
culties arose. Five (5) were in the area of athletics. There
was one complaint in the area of test conflict, one on a reli~
gious holiday and three (3) where there was no set policy on
attendance by the instructor of any kind, yet the instructor
attempted to penalize the student for having missed class. He
said a lot of variations could be found in attendance policies.
He felt the problem many times was communications. He said out
of the forty-six (46) cases in which his office was involved,
twenty-one (2l) of the students were allowed to make up the work
that was in question. Professor Byers said that was a general
summary of the past two years as the Ombudsman's Office indi-
cated.

The Chairman thanked Professor Byers for his report and Frankie Garrison
for compiling the figures.

The Chairman recognized Student Senator Kathleen Ashcraft for an amendment
to the proposed absence policy. Senator Ashcraft moved to delete the word
"required“ in the third paragraph of 2.4.2. The amendment was seconded. The
sentence would read:

"The student shall be given the opportunity to
make up exams missed due to an excused absence
during the semester in which the absence occurred.”

Ms. Ashcraft urged the adoption of this amendment by pointing out that if the
word ”required“ remained in the sentence, the provision would not apply to
students who missed an examination because of an excused absence in a class in
which students could drop the exam with the lowest grade from the final grade
calculation. She said that Senate Rule V, 2.4.6, which applies to common
examinations, permits students to make up all examinations missed because of
an excused absence and that it is unfair to have one policy for common exami-
nations and another for other examinations. There was no further discussion
on the proposed amendment, and it carried on a voice vote.

Professor Gesund felt there was a problem in stating "The student shall be
given the opportunity" when it was impossible to make up an exam. He felt the
words ”if feasible" should be inserted. Student Senator John Cain said that a
professor could give an "I" so that the work could be made up anytime within
the next year. Professor Gesund said as the proposal was presently worded,
that would not work.

Professor Gesund moved an amendment to insert the words ”if feasible" to
the sentence which would then read:

"The student shall, if feasible, be given the opportunity
to make up exams. . ."

The amendment was seconded. In the discussion which followed, Professor
Hood asked Professor Gesund if he would be willing to move "if feasible” to
the end of the sentence. Professor Gesund agreed. Student Senator Todd
Osborne felt an exam on the last day of finals would be taken care of in the

proposal because the last paragraph stated that an instructor shall counsel
the student about the options 0 an ”I" grade or withdrawal from the course

for that semester. Professor Shaw was concerned about the "if feasible"

 

 phrase in whether or not it gave too much freedom to the faculty. Professor
Crowe spoke against the amendment and felt adding “if feasible" allowed too
much leeway. He said the Senate Council had deliberated in formulating the
proposal and felt that with reasonable faculty and reasonable students there
would be no problems. Professor Wood said the reason she wanted "if feasible"
at the end of the sentenCe was exactly Professor Crowe's reason. She felt
students should be allowed to make up the work. By moving ”if feasible" to
the end of the sentence it would apply to the semester. Her intent was to
have the "if feasible" apply to the timing of a make up, not to the option of
the instructor.

Professor Gesund felt that the last paragraph did not handle the problem
of a last day exam because it simply stated “the instructor shall counsel the
student about the options of an "I", but it does not say that the student must
accept an "I" or withdrawal from the course which means if a student misses
such an exam, the student could demand to have an exam on the day grades are
due. Professor Gesund said he did not want to be in violation of Senate Rules
when it was physically impossible to comply.

Professor McMahon said a solution to the various problems which were ex—
pressed might be to have a qualified right to make up a final exam sometime
during the next semester with a mandatory "I” which might solve everyone's
problem.

Professor Gesund moved to postpone action on the amendment. Parliamen-
tarian Blyton ruled that action could not be postponed on an amendment without
postponing the entire package. Professor Gesund moved to postpone the pro—
posal and amendment until the following meeting in November. The motion was
seconded. A senator asked whether discussion of the absence policy would have
to cease if the motion to table carried. The Chair ruled that discussion of
the proposed policy could continue, but that no motions could be entertained.
A consensus was reached to continue consideration of the absence policy on a
discussion-only basis if the motion carried. In a hand count of 34 to l6 the
motion carried.

In the discussion which followed Professor Barclay said she found a prob-
lem at the top of page 3, second paragraph, that stated ”four or more excused
absences." In some once a week classes four absences would be more than one—
fourth of the semester. Professor Barclay did not know the answer, but she
felt something better should be written. Professor Ram felt a policy should
be established for students who were missing because of religious reasons or
death in the family. He felt students should make arrangements in advance of
absences.

Professor Germain agreed with Professor Ram and said he was pleased that
the proposal had been postponed. He was concerned about the purposeful
exclusion of the observance of religious holidays from the proposed absence
policy. He felt exclusion was contrary to the philosophy of UK. His two main
concerns were that faculty might not always be reasonable and sometimes
minorities are treated insensitively. He hoped faculty would rarely rebuff
students for missing classes for a religious holiday. Another problem he saw
was intimidation. He felt it was difficult for students to approach faculty
concerning an absence due to a religious reason. Professor Germain
recommended that the Senate Council consider the proposal carefully, perhaps

 

 with a stated policy that religious services were recognized excuses and that
faculty members on the first day or two of classes enunciate that and invite
students to let them know.

Professor Mather had a concern about the length of time a student had to
notify an instructor about an absence. He said it was an inconvenience when a
student might wait several weeks before telling an instructor why he/she was
absent. He thought it would be helpful to haVe a specific period of time.

Professor Stelling supported the interest in adding religious holidays in
the document. Her other area of concern was being too specific in Section
2.4.2 in listing exact relation of family or else "grandparent" should be
added. She felt adding "grandparent“ should definitely be considered.

Professor McMahon endorsed Professor Germain's suggestion to give serious
consideration in including religious holidays in excused absences. He
recognized there would be some administrative difficulty in formulating a
rule, but he felt in the interest of fairness, it would be well worthwhile to
face that administrative difficulty.

Chairman Canon, on behalf of the Senate Council, asked that someone
proposing the religious holidays offer specific wording for consideration.
Professor Crowe said in his opinion the Senate Council had a feeling of
agreement that religious holidays should be included. The Council did not
seem to know where to draw the line and noted that one Council member said it
was like "opening a can of worms” to include religious holidays. Professor
Crowe welcomed suggestions from anyone. Professor Leigh felt if religious
holidays were included the student should notify the instructor the first few
days of class which holidays he/she would have so the instructor can keep a
record. That might solve some problems and give time to check the validity of
the holiday.

Professor Gesund saw no reason why trips in Section 2.4.2.3 should not
read: "Student shall notify the instructor prior to the absence." He felt the
section should further state: ”The instructor may reguire prior formal
notification from appropriate University personnel ..... He thought trips
should be handled prior to the event. Chairman Canon said that paragraph was
the current existing rule, and it was incorporated without major change. He
stated the paragraph could be changed.

There was no further‘discussion and the meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.

Randall w. Dahl
Secretary

 

 I
LNUVERSHY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
10 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 5 September 1985

\36

MEMORANDUM $7

Members, University Senate Council
fij , ,
Bradley C. Canon, Chairman EVK9\

Change in Senate Rules to Guarantee Medical Center Campus
Representation on Senate Council

I am proposing that Section I—3.l.2 (a) of the Senate Rules be
amended to insure that at least one member of the Senate Council come
from the Medical Center Campus and one from the Lexington Campus. I
think there is some danger of the Medical Center not being represented
on the Council at some future point, perhaps as early as next spring.
We currently have two members from the Medical Center, but Don
Hochstrasser's term expires this fall and Doug Rees has indicated that
he intends to take leave from the university at the end of the fall.

For both symbolic and practical reasons, it is important to
have Medical Center representation on the Council. Roughly 30% to 40%
of