xt71ns0kwh5f https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt71ns0kwh5f/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1985-03-11  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, March 11, 1985 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 11, 1985 1985 1985-03-11 2020 true xt71ns0kwh5f section xt71ns0kwh5f LNMVERSHY OF KENTUCKY



TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
March ll, 1985, at 3:00 p.m. in room 106, Classroom Building.


1. Minutes of February ll, 1985.
2.. Resolutions.
3. Chairman's Remarks.


a. Proposed Change in University Senate Rules, Section IV.,
2.l.l (f) Transfer Students. (Circulated under date of 22


February 1985.)

Proposed recommendation to the administration to alter the
Governing Regulations (page 48), Faculty Members as
Candidates for Degrees, also cited in University Senate
Rules, Section V., 4.1.7. (Circulated under date of 28
February 1985.)



For discussion purposes only: Proposal to alterthe
Administration Regulations, AR II-l,0—6, relative to
evaluations of administrators. (Circulated under date of 1
March 1985.)



George Dexter




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March ll,
l985, in Room l06 of the Classroom Building.

Robert Bostrom, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: Richard Angelo*, Michael A. Baer, Charles E. Barnhart, Jack C.
Blanton, Tex Lee 80995, James A. Boling*, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Ray M. Bowen, Daniel J.
Breazeale, Stanley D. Brunn, I. K. Chew*, Emmett Costich*, M. Ward Crowe, Leo S. Demski*,
Richard C. Domek, Jr.*, Herbert Drennon, Nancy E. Dye, Paul M. Eakin, Anthony Eardley,
William Ecton, Gerald Ferretti*, Ray Forgue, Richard W. Furst, Art Gallaher, Jr.*,

Andrew J. Grimes, Marilyn D. Hamann, Leonard Heller, Raymond Hornback, James Hourigan*,
Alfred S. L. Hu*, Donald W. Ivey*, Keith Johnson*, John J. Just, Gail Kennedy, James 0.
King, Laura L. Ladd*, Donald Leigh, Robert Lawson, O. J. Loewer, David Lowery, Edgar
Maddox, Paul Mandelstam*, Kenneth E. Marino*, Sally S. Mattingly*, Patrick J. McNamara,
Ernest Middleton, Keven D. Moore*, Bobby C. Pass*, Robin D. Powell, Madhira D. Ram*,
Gerald A. Rosenthal, Charles Sachatello*, Edgar Sagan, Timothy Sineath, Otis Singletary*,
David A. Spaeth*, Tom Stephens*, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Howard Sypher*, Kenneth Thompson,
Kellie Towlest Marc J. Wallace, O'Neil Weeks, James H. Wellsi Charles T. Wethington,

Paul A. Willis, Constance Wilson*, Robert G. Zumwinkle

The Minutes of the Meeting of February ll, 1985, were approved as circulated.

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Richard Doughty who presented the following
Memorial Resolution on the death of Dean Earl P. Slone.

Earl P. Slone l902—l985

”Emeritus Dean Earl Platt Slone, Pharmaceutical educa—
tor and friend, passed away on the evening of January 4, l985,
at the Albert B. Chandler Medical Center. He is survived by
his wife Connie.

Dean Slone was a graduate of the Louisville College of
Pharmacy and became its third dean in l946. He continued
as dean and as a professor of pharmacognosy until l967, re—
tiring from the College as a professor Emeritus effective
July l, l973. Born in Henderson, Kentucky, l902, to Samuel
Tilden and Henrietta Clift Slone, he was a resident of
Louisville until l956 when the College of Pharmacy moved to

After graduating as president of his class from Louis—
ville Male High School in l92l, Earl Slone earned a Ph.G.
degree in Pharmacy from the Louisville College of Pharmacy
in l923 and a 8.8. in Pharmacy in l945. He remained with
the College to teach and during the summer of l926 he pur-
sued graduate courses at the University of Chicago. He
spent a number of summers taking courses and earned a Ken—
tucky Teaching Certificate at Western Kentucky University
in l945, and obtained a M.A. in Education Administration at
Columbia University in l95l.



Even before his matriculation into the Louisville
College of Pharmacy in l92l his life was totally entwined
in pharmacy. During earlier years he had experience in
the drug store behind the soda fountain, behind the sun-
dry counter and on a bicycle delivery route. He grew up
in an exciting and bustling Louisville with a zest for
life which never waned. He knew pharmacy from the top
to the bottom and learned much about people. Even in the
last days he retained his good sense of humor and a twin—
kle in his eye. Hanging in his home there is a framed
Anonymous quotation on Youth which reads in part ”....

No one grows old by merely living a number of years:
people grow old only by deserting their ideals.

to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul.” Earl Slone

hung on to his ideals and in seeking the best for pharmacy
students in Kentucky he, with the help of many others,
worked with the late President Herman Donovan to have the
Louisville College of Pharmacy incorporated into the
University. In l947 this was accomplished. The chartered,
free standing Louisville College of Pharmacy turned over
to U.K. all of its assets, furnishings, buildings, and
land in return for affiliation. The faculty, staff, stu—
dents and equipment occupied the current Washington Street
College of Pharmacy Building in l957. This required Earl
Slone's great personal dedication to pharmacy and phar—
maceutical education along with appreciable political
efforts by faithful alumni and friends. One stipulation
for the transfer of resources to U.K. was that the Ginko
tree on the Louisville property be preserved, as it is
reputed to be started from seed by Henry Clay. That
magnificent tree with its three foot plus trunk still
stands beside the Jefferson County Community College
Building near First and Chestnut Streets, the former
Louisville site of the College of Pharmacy.

The move to Lexington was emotionally traumatic, but
one he relished as a victory for the profession and for
pharmacy education. The bright new building, dedicated
in l957 was Earl Slone's dream of an appropriate physical
plant for a college associated with the state university.
He worked constantly with the architects, contractors,
and Maintenance and Operations people to make everything
just right for the students arriving in the Fall of l957.
It was the first building in Kentucky to have ”Pyrex”
glass waste lines from the laboratories; Slone had to get
special permission for this from Frankfort.

Many remember Earl Slone as a gourmet who could always
refer to his little black book and tell you the best place
to eat in most large or small towns he visited from Shart-
lesville, Pennsylvania to Chicago, New York, San Francisco
and New Orleans.

Under the urging of the late Bill Jansen, Dr. Howard
Beers and President Jack Oswald, Earl Slone accepted lead—



ership of the l2 person University of Kentucky Agency for
International Development Contract Team to Bandung Insti—
tute of Technology in Bandung, Indonesia. This was an ex-
citing time for the Slones and they relished each day of it,
serving there from l964 to l966. They were successful in
this educational venture until political unrest in Indonesia
made further stay uncomfortable. But they made the best of
their departure by returning home via Hong Kong, the Middle
East, Europe and a prolonged visit in Great Britain. While
in Indonesia, Earl Slone identified some fine young scholars
who he encouraged to come to the University and start gradu—
ate study. He served as their sponsor and helped them become
established on campus. Upon leaving Bandung he was presented
a medal featuring the mythological emblematic symbol of the
school. Regularly, since returning from Indonesia, until

the fall of l984, he collected textbooks, journals and refer;
ence books and shipped them to the Pharmacy School in Bandung
at his own expense.

Earl Slone was a very active person socially. He was a
Mason, a member of the Lions International, Phi Delta Chi,
Phi Delta Kappa, Omicron Delta Kappa, a life member of the
American Pharmaceutical Association, Kentucky Pharmacists
Association, the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy,
Bluegrass Pharmacists Association, Institute for the History
of Pharmacy, Indiana Historical Society, a life member of the
U.K. Alumni Association and the Southland Christian Church.
He served many years on the Ephriam McDowell House Board of
Governors and assisted in the restoration of the Historical
McDowell Apothecary in Danville.

Up until recent months, Dean Slone remained an active
member of the Bluegrass Pharmacist's Association, attended
its meetings, and visited the College of Pharmacy weekly. He
was a warm, friendly man of great personal integrity, highly
respected by former graduates, and by colleagues and staff
at the College. He will be missed. An oil painting of him
hangs in the College Admissions office in tribute to his many
years of valued service and important leadership at the

In a letter published in the Louisville Courier Journal,
January 24, l985, Robert L. Barnett, Jr., Class of l959


. the commonwealth lost one of its

giants in the profession of Pharmacy. Those
of us who knew him will always remember his
humor, his compassion, his love of life and
the things life offers, and his dedication
to the profession and to the professionals
he educated.

I, like many other Kentucky pharmacists,
will miss a good friend. Many of us know


 that we are what we are today because Dean
S1one encouraged us to succeed."

(Prepared by Professor Richard M. Doughty, Co11ege of Pharmacy)

Professor Doughty requested that the Reso1ution be entered into these minutes
and that copies be sent to Mrs. S1one. Chairman Bostrom asked the senators to stand
for a moment of si1ence in tribute and respect to Dean Ear1 P. S1one.

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Andrew Hiatt who presented the fo11owing
Memoria1 ResoTution on the death of Professor Ernest N. Fergus.


Ernest N. Fergus 1892—1985

”Dr. E° N. Fergus was born near Sidney, Ohio in 1892
and died January 3, 1985. He graduated from Ohio State
University with a Bache1or's degree in Agricu1ture in 1916.
He received a Master's degree from Ohio State in 1918 and
then joined the staff of Purdue University's Agricu1tura1
Experiment Station. He obtained a doctorate from the Uni~
versity of Chicago in 1931. He joined the facu1ty of the
Co11ege of Agricu1ture in 1920 and retired in the mid—1960's.

During his 42 years at the University of Kentucky,
Dr. Fergus taught c1asses in crop production and management,
had charge of research in forage crops and pastures and
assisted in Agricu1tura1 Extension projects in forage pro—

In 1931, Fergus discovered a previous1y unknown c001-
season forage grass that had been growing in Menifee
County since 1887. The grass was identified, eva1uated and
re1eased in 1942 as Ky 31 Ta11 Fescue. The contribution of
this variety of grass to pasture, turf and conservation pur—
poses was considered a breakthrough for agricu1tura1 indus—

He was the first person to study fai1ures of red c1over
stands. His findings and breeding work cu1minated in the
deve1opment and re1ease of Ken1and Red C1over in 1948.
Fergus a1so did research that 1ed to the deve1opment of the
Cumber1and variety of red c1over and the improvement of
Kentucky b1uegrass seed production.

Fergus was author or co—author of three books and numer—
ous artic1es on forage crop improvement. He was a1so a
Fe11ow of the American Society of Agronomy and of the Ameri-
can Association for the Advancement of Science. He has
served as Vice-President and Director of the Kentucky Re—
search Foundation and was a member of Sigma Xi and the U.K.
Research C1ub. He served on the Board of Trustees of Lees
Junior Co11ege and the Board of Directors of the Lexington



Y.M.C.A. He also had been an elder at Maxwell Street
Presbyterian Church for about 50 years.

Dr. Fergus was recognized as a gentleman by his friends
and colleagues. In addition to his service to Agriculture,
perhaps one of his greatest contributions was the hiring
and stimulation of a group of professors in Agriculture who
have furthered the research that he initiated. He was held
in the fondest regard by all who knew him, both at the State
and national level and his advice and council will be sorely

Fergus is survived by a son, Charles S. Fergus of Lexing—
ton, a brother, two sisters, two grandchildren and a great

(Prepared by Professor Norman L. Taylor, Department of Agronomy,
College of Agriculture)

Professor Hiatt requested that the Resolution be entered into these minutes
and that copies be sent to the family. Chairman Bostrom asked the senators to stand
for a moment of silence in tribute and respect to Dr. Ernest N. Fergus.

The Chairman made the following remarks:

“I am taking a few minutes today for a few brief remarks
about the Senate and the Senate system that I would like to
pass on and I promise to make them brief.

First of all, I want to mention that your Senate Council
has been an extremely busy group this year. This year the
council has studied programs in Geography, Health and Recrea—
tion, Communications, Microbiology, Art, Theatre, Education's
Ed.D. program and Nursing's Ph.D. program. I have probably
left a number out. We have made recommendations to the Presi—
dent on prior service promotions, tenure, Saturday examinations,
and countless University committees. We have discussed the
general education program, the merger of UK-UL and in addition
we have passed on to you a significant number of recommendations
for action.

Whenever I go to another University or visit with my
colleagues from other parts of the country and discuss my job,
they are astounded. They say, 'You mean your university
actually puts all that authority in a single academic body?l
It is indeed the case. Many of us forget that our particular
Senate is one of the strongest, both in terms of our institu—
tional prestige and in our faculty participation, around the
country. I don't know of many other institutions in which the
faculty has this much input and this much to say about what
goes on. Participatory democracy is a cherished privilege and
I think we need to remind ourselves that UK does an extraor-
dinary job in providing this kind of participation. I feel
that we need to remind ourselves that our University adminis-
tration has done an extremely good job in maintaining this



kind of activity. When I first began to work on the University
Senate Council and began to read the Governing Regulations,

I discovered that the President can do anything he wants to

do. It is literally true that the Governing Regulations give
the President that power. President Singletary has been very
good, to the best of my knowledge, about not exercising that
power. In almost every instance, in the last four years, he has
come to the Senate Council and often to the Senate for counsel
and for advice. This kind of behavior is rare in the modern
University President.



Having said these good things, I think it is clear there
are also a lot of bad things that go along with this system.
It is probably one of the most cumbersome systems that I
have ever been involved in. We have committees and sub-
committees and approval steps for even the simple things
like course approval. You can remember that three years
ago the Council tried to simplify the steps, and the
Senate rejected it. You wanted to keep it cumbersome.

There are times we need to think about streamlining some
of these procedures.

Last, but not least, I think I can testify firsthand
there is a lot of political manipulation by one group or
another on campus. Apparently those are the kinds of
things that are inevitable when we have a procedure like

The good things are, of course, it insures a strong
sense of peer review when academic change is brought about.
I think you and I do respect one another as peers and are
willing to let our peers look at our programs, teaching and
research activities. This is a sign of a great University
when we recognize that someone across the campus in a
different discipline is likely to be educated enough and
have good enough sense to pass on the kinds of things we
might be doing. In that sense, I think the system tends
to produce quality. When we look at the cumbersome proce—
dures that go on and the kinds of things we go through we
forget that subjecting this sort of thing to our peers
does indeed produce quality programs and quality activity.

Last, but not least, it is good communication. A
large system like this provides lots of interpersonal
contact across the campus.

I don't have to tell you that not everyone at the
University of Kentucky appreciates this process. There
are those in the administration who would be a lot
happier if we did not have a Senate. I have heard from
time to time little remarks that lead me to believe if
some of these folks could abolish our group they would
do that. I don't see any danger of that, but you should
know there are in many places some sentiment that would
just as soon do away with it. Some of those folks are



uncomfortable with democratic procedures. Others would
just rather proceed more efficiently. I think many
faculty also have the same kind of 'management and mill
hands' idea--that is, the management should manage and

the mill hands should produce, and we should just get on
with business. I think in this day and age we need to

be much more careful about guarding the process, and we
need to guard it jealously. We need to take the time, do
our homework, study and be prepared for our committee work
and we need to participate responsibly and consider the
common goal. If I could enjoin you to forget about the
petty consideration, and forget about what was done to you
ten years ago.

Second of all, try to remember not to use the system
to try to advance your own political concerns, your own
interests, your own notions of what is right for the Uni—
versity. I think that will help.

I want to conclude with one last recommendation. I
hope you will take this seriously, at least next year. We
have to simplify this system. I feel that we can do that
if we will simply work harder at it. I think if we don't
we are going to be subjected to more and more pressure from
more and more people who in the interest of efficiency and
speed will ask us to give up our faculty prerogative and
our senate system. I don't think the danger is real yet,
but if we let it get worse it will be. Let's consider that.

Thank you for your attention.“

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Bradley Canon, Secretary of the Senate
Council, for a motion. Professor Canon, on behalf of the Senate Council, recommended
approval for the proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section IV., 2.l.l, (f)
Transfer Students. Professor Canon said that basically the proposal changed the term
”good standing” because those students would have been admitted automatically had they
applied to the University. The revised rule will require a 2.0 cumulative average and
a 2.0 average at the last institution attended. This proposal was circulated to
members of the senate under date of February 22, l985.


The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Altenkirch pointed
out that the difference between a student who would have been automatically accepted
and a student not automatically accepted is the twenty—four hour requirement. The
grade point average is the same. If a student is able to perform, the University will
accept the student. The rule was written for students who are able to perform. He
said the mechanism for looking at problem students was to have the student send in
credentials and information as to why he/she is an exception. He argued against writ—
ing a rule to take those kind of students into account. He felt what had been done
in the past was the best solution.

Dr. Sands‘ objections were the same he had at the last meeting. He said there
were cases of students who had done well overall and would have been accepted at the
University——enrolled at another institution, had a 2.0 standing, so the last institu—
tion attended should not be that significant. He moved to amend the proposal by add—
ing a period after ”attempted” and delete the remainder of the sentence. Professor


 Hasan seconded the motion. The amendment reads as follows:

"....that he/she has a cumulative GPA of 2.0 or better for
all work attempted.“

The floor was opened for debate on the amendment. Professor Thrailkill asked
about the appeal process. Dr. Sands said there was always a provision for appeal but
his concern was that it was not stated in connection with the rule. He felt if an
appeal process was to be used, it should be stated in the rule.

Chairman Bostrom asked Dr. Rice, Director of Admissions, what procedure the
Admissions Office would use. Dr. Rice said under the policy as proposed there would
be no automatic appeal through the admissions process. The admissions committee
requires a written statement from a student explaining his/her situation. There—
fore, the Admissions Office would not automatically refer the student to the
admissions committee. Professor Altenkirch said there were many categories of stu—
dents admitted and not one of those categories had anything about appeals. He felt
all students rejected should be made aware of the fact they could appeal.

Professor McMahon moved an amendment to change the period at the end of the sen-
tence to a comma and add the words, ”in addition, transfer students must have a
cumulative GPA of 2.0 or better for all work attempted at the last institution attended
provided that he/she had attempted twelve or more credit hours.” Professor McMahon
added that if a student had been at a second institution for a semester full-time and
not achieved a 2.0, the student would not be admitted, but if it were summer school
or part-time, that would not be counted against the student. Professor Hasan was not
in favor of the appeal process but supported having a 2.0 average from all institutions
attended. He basically supported Dr. Sands' motion, but he was willing to compromise.
Professor Altenkirch pointed out that the statement concerning the last institution
attended came about because the University did not want to accept students on academic
suspension at another university. Therefore, this was a simple way of implementing
the admissions process.

The Chair ruled the motion to amend out of order.

Dr. Sands and Professor Hasan accepted the amendment as part of their amendment.
Professor McMahon moved a shorter version of the amendment to change the period at the
end of the sentence to a comma and add the words, ”if he/she has attempted at least
twelve credit hours (or the equivalent thereof) at that institution.”

In a hand count of 27 to l6 the amendment passed. The original motion as amended
passed unanimously and reads as follows:

Proposal: (delete bracketed portion, add underlined portion)

IV., 2.l.l Transfer Students

Students at other colleges or universities, in—
cluding UK Community Colleges, will be permitted
to transfer to the University of Kentucky if
they meet one of the following criteria:

l. A student who would have been accepted
at the time he/she entered [another] the
first institution attended will be allowed



to transfer at any time to UK provided that
he/she has a cumulative GPA of 2.0 or
better for all work attempted and has a
cumulative GPA of 2.0 or better for all
work attempted at the last institution
attended, if he/she has attempted at

least twelve credit hours (or the equiva—
lent thereof) at that institution.








A student who would not have been automatically
accepted but has completed 24 semester hours

or more and achieved a cumulative GPA of 2.0

or better for all college and university work
attempted [at another institution]and has a
cumulative GPA of 2.0 or better for all work
attempted at the last institution attended will
be allowed to transfer to UK.





l. Different institutions interpret ”good standing“ differ-
ently. We should define specifically what we interpret
good standing to be so that all transfer applicants know
exactly what 9gr_requirements are.

The criteria are written as if a student attended one
other institution before applying to UK as a transfer
student. This is usually not the case, and the criteria
should be rewritten to reflect clearly what standards a
transfer applicant who attended one or more “other insti—
tutions“ must meet to be accepted at UK.

NOTE: Implementation Date: Summer Session, l985.

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Bradley Canon, Secretary of the Senate
Council. Professor Canon, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved adoption of the
proposed recommendation to the administration to alter the Governing Regulations and
the University Senate Rules concerning Faculty Members as Candidates for Degrees.
Professor Canon said the change would allow members of the University faculty to obtain
degrees in a discipline other than their own. The rule would retain the provision
against a faculty member obtaining an advanced degree in their own discipline. This
proposal was circulated to members of the senate under date of February 28, l985.




The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor McMahon wanted to
know if a sabbatical would satisfy not being employed for that purpose as opposed to
an unpaid leave. He did not know how that would apply to a person wanting a law
degree because the College of Law had three years of course work for 89 credits with—
out a dissertation. Professor Canon said it was not intended for people in the College
of Law but for those seeking a Ph.D. His feeling was that probably anyone on Univer—
sity salary would be considered employed but Professor Canon said he was not speaking
with any authority.

Dean Royster felt a definition was needed for ”employed full-time.“ Also, he
felt there should be an interpretation on ”qualifying for residency” because if a
person is required to have three years of full-time residency and that person en—



rolled part—time before the qualifying examination, an interpretation would have to
be made. He felt in the statement in the proposal there were going to be a lot of
interpretations the Graduate School would have to make and there were not a lot of
instructions. He wanted something worked out whereby there would not be problems
with the interpretation in each case. Dean Royster did not feel it was fair for a
person to resign to work on a doctorate. He felt there were inequities in the pro—

Professor DeMers asked about the interpretation of ”discipline“ in whether or
not it meant departments or colleges. He understood not awarding degrees to colleagues.
Chairman Bostrom said many graduate programs were in a particular department.

Professor Stanhope moved an amendment to read:

”Faculty who currently hold degrees from the University
of Kentucky may not be considered as candidates for
degrees above the masters degree at the University of

Professor Altenkirch seconded the motion.

Professor Stanhope said the College of Nursing was concerned about their faculty
getting all degrees at the University of Kentucky. They would like to encourage them
to leave and bring back a different point of view. Professor Canon appreciated the
problem in the College of Nursing but felt the amendment was broad. He felt the solun=
tion was an administrative action in the College of Nursing.

Professor McEllistrem wanted to know if Professor Stanhope was talking about
people currently employed as a faculty member. He felt that was different than en-
couraging students to join the University‘s faculty. He recommended reexamination of
the proposal for careful definition of pre—qualifying residency and eligibility for
advanced degrees for people on the faculty who hold other degrees from this University.

Professor Thrailkill moved that the entire proposal be referred to the Senate
Council for action they deemed fit. He also wanted the item "full—time” to be studied.
The motion was seconded. Dean Royster suggested that the proposal be sent to the
Graduate Council and then to the Senate Council. Professor Thrailkill agreed.

Professor Belmore wanted to know if there was a possibility the proposal would
come back to the Senate before the end of the academic year. Dean Royster said the
recommendation would have to go to the Board of Trustees. Professor Canon said all
questions on definitions or problems should be mentioned. The motion to refer passed.

Professor Omvig questioned the ”no full—time work during the first two semesters
of the dissertation period.” He felt that was something a person could do at his/her
own speed; The Chairman said the Senate Council was concerned when someone took a
course here and there and ”dribbled" themselves into a Ph.D. degree. Professor
Applegate said the basic idea of the proposal made complete sense. He felt the senti—
ment was sympathetic in making the proposal a workable thing and not in anyway opposu
ing its adoption. He agreed with all of the proposal. Professor Hasan wanted to know
if the minutes would show the general feeling of the Senate. Chairman Bostrom said a
straw vote could be taken. Professor Belmore said that since the proposal was only a
recommendation to the administration, could a new motion be made to endorse the con—
sensus of the recommendation without specific wording. The Chairman said it would
not make any difference because the group would have to vote again; therefore, it would



a 1 - O

be an extraneous motion. Professor Belmore moved that the general sentiment of the
Senate, if details could be worked out, was in favor of the proposal. The motion was
seconded. In a straw vote the motion passed.

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Bradley Canon. Professor Canon, on behalf
of the Senate Council, presented the proposal to alter the Administrative Regulations,
AR II—l.0—6, relative to evaluations of administrators. The proposal was offered
for discussion purposes only and had been circulated on March l, l985. Professor Canon
said in the second paragraph, line 4, the word ”faculty“ should be deleted. Beginning
that paragraph a new sentence should be added: ”This annual review will normally
utilize some formal evaluation by faculty in the affected unit as part of the review
session. Units will be expected to develop their own evaluative procedure." This
was a result of a Senate Council Committee headed by Professor Frye. It was proposed
on the basis that there was not enough faculty input in the evaluation of administra-



Professor Harris said there had been many positive changes in the University
in the last few years but the negative change which he would state publicly was the
incomprehensive amount of paperwork. His prediction was there would be relatively
little ”piece of mind” for any administrator below the level of dean. Chairman
Bostrom responded he had been in a department for fifteen years that did evaluations
routinely and it had not been that bad.

Professor Applegate understood Professor Harris' concern for paperwork, but he
said it was not that much trouble. He felt the upper evaluation process was a good
point, and he supported the idea. A committee is appointed in Chairman Bostrom's
department who also fills out the forms. Professor Harris said the proposal was
asking for an annual review, but he felt every four years was fine.

Professor Frye indicated that the committee's report to the Senate stated that
there was a great deal of sentiment on the part of the