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 LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032 UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1 March 1985 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. AGENDA: 1. Minutes of February ll, 1985. 2.. Resolutions. 3. Chairman's Remarks. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 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 Secretary AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, MARCH ll, I985 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. MEMORIAL RESOLUTION 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 Lexington. 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. -2- 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— -3- 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 College. In a letter published in the Louisville Courier Journal, January 24, l985, Robert L. Barnett, Jr., Class of l959 writes: . 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. MEMORIAL RESOLUTION 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— duction. 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— try. 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 -5” 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 missed. Fergus is survived by a son, Charles S. Fergus of Lexing— ton, a brother, two sisters, two grandchildren and a great grandchild.” (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 -6- 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 ours. 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 -7- 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 -9- 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. Rationale: 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— -10- 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— posal. 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 Kentucky.” 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 -1]- 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- tors. 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