xt7228051c7c https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7228051c7c/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1992-04-13  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, April 13, 1992 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 13, 1992 1992 1992-04-13 2020 true xt7228051c7c section xt7228051c7c (“data/5%




10 April 1992

TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session (n1 Monday,
(fifiiflififi3gfil9925 at 3:00 P.M. in room 115 of the Nursing Building
1. Minutes: 9 March 1992.


Chair's announcements.

a. Report from Institutional Finance and Resource Allocation
Committee, prepared by James Funk, Chair.

Report of results from Board of Trustees Ballots —- member

Faculty Handbook —- report of expected timing of release.
Report, Academic Ombud: J. Russ Groves.

Action Items

a. Recommendation. to the administration to revise the
Administrative Regulations (AR II — 1.0) to incorporate the
Report on Teaching Evaluations materials. (Circulated
under date of 7 April 1992 )
Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section IV —
Admission. to the College of Education: Teacher Education

Program. (Circulated under date of 31 March 1992.)

Action on proposed Honor Code for College of Dentistry
(circulated under date of 6 April 1992).

Report and final action on the report of the ad hoc
Committee on the Status of Women (circulated under date of
25 March 1992).



 Page 2
US Agenda: 13 April 1992
10 April 1992

e. Report and final action. on the ad hoc Committee on the
Status of Minorities (circulated under date of 7 April

Randall Dahl
Secretary, University Senate



The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, April
l3, l992, in Room 115 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Marcus T. McEllistrem, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Reginald J. Alston, Jim Arnett, Robert S. Baker*,
Bart Baldwin, Harry V. Barnard*, Robert L. Blevins*, Douglas A. Boyd, Carolyn
S. Bratt*, Martha Bruenderman, Joseph T. Burch, D. Allan Butterfield*,
Rutheford 8 Campbell, Jr., Bradley C. Canon, Clyde R. Carpenter, Ben W. Carr,
Edward A. Carter, Samuel Q. Castle, Donald B. Clapp, Lenore Crihfield, Scott
A. Crosbie, Frederick W. Danner, Richard C. Domek, Jr., Paul M. Eakin, James
E. Funk*, Richard W. Furst, Joseph H. Gardner, Misha Goetz, Lester Goldstein,
Philip A. Greasley, Tod A. Griffin, William S. Griffith, Robert D. Guthrie,
Lynne A. Hall*, J. John Harris III, Zafar S. Hasan, Christine Havice, Donald
L. Hockstrasser*, Brian Hoffman, Micki King Hogue, James G. Hougland, Jr., Don
A. Howard, Jay Ingle, Richard A. Jensen, Adrian Jones*, Kevin S. Kiernan,
Angela Knopp, Kenneth K. Kubota*, James M. Kuder*, C. Oran Little, William C.
Lubawy, Bruce A. Lucas, Lee Magid, Pamela McMahon*, Shawn Meauz, Peggy S.
Meszaros*, Richard S. Milich*, Phyllis J. Nash*, Derby Newman, Clayton R.
Paul, Deborah E. Powell*, Daniel R. Reedy, Thomas C. Robinson, Jim Shambhu,
Michael C. Shannon, Andrew Shveda, M. Scott Smith*, Robert H. Spedding, David
H. Stockham, Brian Stover, John S. Thompson*, Miroslaw Truszczynski*, Thomas
Tucker, Charles T. Wethington*, Carolyn A. Williams*, Eugene R. Williams, Paul
A. Willis, Emery A. Wilson*, and Thomas R. Zentall.

The ChairperSon announced that there will be another Senate meeting on

Monday, April 27. There will be the Honor Code from the College of Medicine,
and there will be other issues coming forth at that time.

The Minutes of March 9, l992, were approved as circulated. The
Chairperson stated that the February Minutes have been received. However,
since they are long and had two sets of calendars with them, he did not ask
for approval.

.The next item on the agenda had to do with the anticipated retirement of
an individual. The Chairperson read a brief statement submitted by a former
Chairperson of the Senate Council, Professor Constance Wilson.

We will miss Martha Sutton when she retires. Since the 70's she
has provided quietly but with grace the continuity of this body as
required, the accurate Minutes this body has taken as routine. She
will now take these same gifts and share them as she starts her new
life teaching children. We wish her good luck and best wishes.

The Chairperson invited Celinda Todd to present a resolution on Martha's
behalf. Celinda Todd stated:

"On May 3, 1976, Professor Paul Sears offered a resolution on
behalf of the Senate for ... and I quote ... ‘one person among
us whose association with this body is unparalleled in its

*Absence explained.


 Minutes, University Senate, April 13, 1992

history.‘ These words were directed to Ms. Kathryn Shelburne,
who had served as Recording Secretary of the University Senate
for twenty years. In September, 1976, Martha Ferguson assumed
the seat to my left for her first Senate meeting as the
Recording Secretary of the University Senate. She was taking
the place of the legendary Kitty Shelburne. Martha has held
that seat ever since, and filled those legendary shoes with the
same style and forthrightness as her predecessor. And so today
we honor the second person as we did the first-—as unique in
her association with the University Senate.

Lots of things have changed since 1976. For one thing, she's
known to all of you now as Martha Sutton. But she's still the
Martha you call when you want to know the result of an election
or what was really said on the floor about an issue. She is
the record keeper of the Senate, who, with the Chair of the
Rules Committee has conducted all the elections - for the
Senate and its Councils as well as the Faculty Board members.
The Senate meetings have moved from the Law School court room
by way of the classroom building, the biological sciences
building and finally to this building. Computers and word
processors have taken the place of those old favorites--the
electric typewriter. A recording system in the room has
provided an incredibly fine vehicle for making the tapes to
.transcribe the Senate's every word. Some may even argue that
that may not always be a plus! But it beats carrying around a

load of recording equipment and back-up everything—-something
she did for a lot of years.

I'm sure the most obvious change in her tenure has been in the
Senate leadership. Martha has worked with sixteen Senate
Council chairs, some of whom are here today to honor her in
this, her last Senate meeting. Each could speak to her unique
contributions and her unflagging loyalty to the Senate, but
each is here today to let her know in no small measure how
important her presence has been. Beginning in 1976,

1976 Mac Jewell, Political Science
1977 Connie Wilson, Social work
1978 Paul Oberst, Law

1979 Joe Bryant, English

1980 Joe Krislov, Economics

1981 George Schwert, Biochemistry
1982 Don Ivey, Music

1983 Doug Rees, Medicine

1984 Bob Bostrom, Communications
1985 Brad Canon, Political Science
1986 Wilbur Frye, Agronomy

1987 Bill Lyons, Political Science
1988 Loys Mather, Ag Economics
1989 Don Leigh, Engineering Mechanics
1990 Carolyn Bratt, Law ’

1991 Marcus McEllistrem, Physics


 Minutes, University Senate, April l3, 1992

Mr. Chairman, please let us rise to recognize Martha Sutton for
her many contributions to the University Senate and the
University of Kentucky. Let us express to her, with a round of
applause, our gratitude for her fine service, devotion and
extraordinary work ethic, and, to wish her godspeed as she
moves on to other challenges and rewards in the years ahead.

The Chairperson thanked Celinda and stated that the resolution was
enthusiastically and unanimously adopted.

The following remarks were made by the Chairperson:

We have a report from one of our committees that has been
especially relevant to issues that have come up in the recent past,
in the present and in the future. That has to do with budget
issues. This is a report from the Senate Committee on Institutional
Finances and Resource Allocations. Professor James Funk, Mechanical
Engineering, asked me to read the report to you. He and his
committee have met on several occasions with Vice President Ed
Carter, Vice President for Management and Budget, and Joan McCauley
in the Office of Planning and Budget. They have been very coopera-
tive and helpful with our committee. Professor Funk has said, 'In
the various annual reports revenue is reported by source--such as
state appropriation, tuition and fees, etc. Expenditures are
reported by l) programs—-such as instruction, research, etc. and
2) by categories--such as personnel costs, operating expenses, etc.
The totals for sources on the one hand and expenditures by program
and categories on the other are, of course, equal. Personnel are
characterized by groups such as executive/administrative/managerial,
faculty, professional and non-faculty professional and so forth. We
would like to see, by department, college, and sector (including
graduate studies, research and information services), and central
administration, expenditures by Program and by Category such that the
sum of all of these will be equal in number to the annual reports
mentioned above. We would also like to see, for the same breakdown,
personnel numbers by the group categorization mentioned above. If
such data are available for each year for the past few years, it
would be helpful.I

Those data have been requested and Professor Funk and his
committee will be working with the Office of Planning and Budget to
work through these numbers in the future. We hope that will be
helpful to the whole strategic planning process that will be going on
next year.I

That is the report from that committee. I want also to offer a
couple of other reports. I can report the results of the Board of
Trustee ballots. Professor Deborah Powell, Chairperson of the
Department of Pathology, was elected to represent the faculty to the
Board of Trustees. {Professor Powell was given a round of applause.]
Professor Powell joins Professor Carolyn Bratt of the College of Law,
and those will be our two faculty trustees when the new Board is put
together on July l.


 Minutes, University Senate, April l3, l992

As you know, Professor John Piecoro, who offers action items
this year for your consideration, will succeed me at the middle of
next month, May l6, as Chairperson of the Senate Council and it is
traditional to select the successor to that individual about this
time. Professor Daniel Fulks, Department of Accounting in the
College of Business and Economics, has agreed to become Chair-elect
and will succeed Professor Piecoro a year from now.

The Faculty Handbook has gone through one round of reviews by
selected faculty and administrators and one or two staff people. It
is in the rewriting stage right now. It appears to be more or less
on course so we should expect the faculty Handbook sometime late this
spring or summer. It should be here in ample time for the visit from
the Self-Study Site Committee next fall. That is coming along at an
orderly pace.

Finally we will have a brief report today from Russell Groves,
the Academic Ombud.

Professor J. Russell Groves, Academic Ombud for l991-92, made the
following remarks:

Thank you Marcus. As you know, it is customary in the fall of
each year for the Academic Ombud to present a full report. I will do
that at the appropriate time. It occurred to me as we approach
finals week that I might share with you just a few thoughts from our
experience in the past year. While the year is not completed, I
think that I can share with you some thoughts that might be useful in
the next few weeks especially as we approach finals week.

I had several issues I wanted to share, but in the interest of
time, I extracted one that I think is most important and that has to
do with cheating and plagiarism. The number of cases to come to the
Academic Ombud has been few, and is not likely to exceed, I would
project, a dozen at the end of this year, it is my guess that many of
you are dealing with those issues in an informal way and that the
number is probably far greater than the figure which comes to the
Office of the Academic Ombud.

Nonetheless, it is my view that in terms of human capital, these
cases are probably the most expensive in terms of time, frustration,
some times ill will, and productive activity. All of those things
seem to be intensified under conditions of the confrontation that
occurs when allegations of cheating and plagiarism take place.

Thus, my message to you is simply this: please return to your
respective faculties and perhaps unearth this memorandum which
Gretchen Lagonda prepared almost a year ago, having revised the
previous version, and talk with your faculty about steps that are
proper under instances of alleged cheating and plagiarism. I will
tell you that the matter of bringing an accusation against a student


 Minutes, University Senate, April l3, 1992

is sometimes very difficult. It is difficult in terms of proof, who
witnessed what, and sometimes it turns out to be extremely controver-
sial. Nonetheless, I think these guidelines provide the best
possible course of action. I would urge you to review those and
maybe even consider some "what ifs." Obviously, we have TAs, and we
have new members of faculty who just may not be familiar with the
procedures that are set out in this memorandum in the University
Regulations. We probably have some new deans and department chair-
persons who also fall into that category. I think it would be time
well spent. In the fall I will share with you statistics and give
you the normal report that occurs at that time. Also, I will give
you an overview of trends, tendencies, and observations I have seen
in an effort to help us all to do a better job. For now, it seems to
me that given my experience over the last year that this is perhaps
the one most significant issue that I can bring before you in the
homestretch as it were, and I ask you to take a second look at this
issue. Thanks.

The Chairperson thanked Professor Groves for his remarks.

The following remarks were made by the Chairperson on the actions of the

The Legislature has finished now, and there are several things
they have done that impact higher education very impressively, and I
thought it would be worthwhile pointing those out. You know about
the Board of Trustees reconstitution. We will have a new Board
starting July l. Probably one—half continuing members and one-half
new members. The overall reappointments will be one—half continuing,
but it is my understanding that each individual board need not be
one—half continuing. The new board should be oriented by a procedure
involving the faculty of each institution, so that is something that
the University faculty will be involved with after July l,

There is an effectiveness and accountability piece of legisla-
tion that was passed that does not impact as much as I had first
thought because it turns out that the Office of Planning and Budget
has already been reporting much and the President‘s Assistant for
Academic Affairs has been reporting much of this information to the
Council on Higher Education. This is now made a matter of law. We
have already been doing nearly all of it so that will not have such
big impact in terms of any change. Two laws have been passed that
will impact the way some of us sometimes do business, I think. One
is an open meetings law, and the other is the open records law. The
open records statute makes university employees, for the purpose of
open records, State employees which means, for example, that from now
on all peer evaluation letters of anybody are open letters available
to the person being evaluated in that person's personnel file. There
are no more confidential letters. The open meetings result means
that in departments, for example, when there is a meeting we will
have to take minutes and carefully delineate at least all of the


 Minutes, University Senate, April l3, l992

actions the department takes and have that record available for
inspection later should that record be requested. This open meetings
law has that impact through something called the 'State Archives and
Library Act' which is something not passed at this time but exists.
This will mean a material change in the way we go about personnel

Another thing is that a task force has been appointed to look at
the issue of common course numbering through Community Colleges and
four-year colleges and universities. By November l993 this task
force should be able to report to the Legislative Research Commission
which courses in our University can be declared to be common in
content and so forth with courses in other institutions and they
should then be given common course numbers, and those courses would
be automatically transferable. Other courses that cannot be desig-
nated as common in that sense should be delineated, should be noted
so that students know which are the common courses and which are
not. There is a task force studying that issue to report back to the
Legislature. Comparable courses bear the same numbers; comparable
courses automatically transfer and courses not transferable are
clearly identified. The procedures for adding, deleting or
reassigning courses would be looked at. These are legislative
actions that impact all of higher education in Kentucky. I wanted to
mention that. [For a more complete explanation of the Legislature's
actions, see attached report at the end of these minutes.]

The Chairperson asked the Senate to waive the ten-day circulation rule for
several of the items on the agenda. Motion was moved, seconded, and passed to
waive the ten-day circulation rule.

The Chairperson recognized Professor John J. Piecoro to present the first
action item on the teaching portfolio which had been considered at a previous
Senate meeting. Professor Piecoro read the background information on the
recommendations from the committee. ProfeSsor Piecoro, on behalf of the
Senate Council, recommended approval of the recommendation regarding Teacher
Evaluation from the Ad-Hoc Teaching Evaluation Committee to be inSerted at the
appropriate place in the Administrative Regulations regarding the criteria for
appointment, promotion and tenure decisions. (This proposal was circulated to
members of the University Senate under date of 7 April 1992.)

Professor Piecoro stated that since the proposal is from the Senate
Council it required no second. Professor Piecoro pointed out that on page 2
under Item 6 the words "graduate students" should be inserted after the phrase
"supervision of Honors students, graduate students, independent or... ...... “
The floor was opened for discussion.

Professor Jesse Neil (Physics and Astronomy) moved that Item No. 1 under
"Advising Evaluation" be changed to read "suggested but not required" in the
portfolio. In the “Teaching Evaluation" he moved that on page 2, the first
line be reworded to state, "provides whatever information the instructor feels


to be necessary to provide ........ and delete the word "may." He also moved
that under "Teaching Evaluation", item 2 to change "one paragraph description
to be changed to "short description."


 Minutes, University Senate, April l3, l992

The Chairperson stated that the first amendment on the floor was to move
Item No. l from "required for documentation of teaching" to "suggested but not
required” and should be considered separately. The amendment was seconded and
the floor was opened for discussion. Professor David Durant (English) feels
it is appropriate to have Item I required. Dr. Louis Swift, Dean of Under-
graduate Studies, feels that Item I is one of the most important parts of the
whole portfolio. He feels that from everything he has read it helps faculty
members to sit down and think about what they are doing, what they are going
to do, and what they have done. Every one of them has been a helpful document
to solicit response and to get some feel of what the faculty member thinks
about teaching, what she/he does with the teaching, what success she/he has
had with the teaching and what the plans are for the future. He assured the
Senate that the temptations that Professor Neil sees have not materialized.
His reason for thinking the recommendation is so important is.that once the
faculty member thinks about his/her teaching, that is very important for
evaluating what is wrong. Professor Neil pointed out that his amendment does
not remove the possibility for any faculty member to put valuable material
into a portfolio. He feels that what he has to say would sound like a lot of
platitudes. He stated that he tries to teach the best physics he knows how,
and then he can give a few examples, but he does not see that this would be
very helpful to someone trying to judge his teaching.

A Senator stated that next year he would be serving on one of the Area
Committees for the second time during his tenure at the University, and he
does not feel that teaching evaluation has been considered fully enough in the
past. He supports the committee's version and wants Item No. l to be
required. He feels the committee has presented a legitimate package of
materials. He does not support the amendment.

Professor William Moody (Animal Sciences) feels the recommendation should
be a requirement in the committee's report because one of the beauties of the
whole proposal is the fact that it tends to standardize and yet it provides a
system or procedure which the teaching faculty can use as guidelines. Other
people, such as those who judge tenure, promotion and these kinds of things,
can use the information. He supports the committee's recommendations.

Professor Richard Ausness (Law) wanted to know if he is correct in
assuming that the recommendation applies to people who have been fully
promoted. The Chairperson stated that the recommendations apply to everyone
whose normal assignment includes teaching. Professor Ausness stated that for
those who are fully promoted it seems there is a lot of effort and paperwork.
He would rather see individual colleges adopt a procedure that works best for
them. Professor John Thrailkill (Geology) wanted to know if the intent of the
portfolio is the sole teaching and advising document used in promotion and
merit evaluations. The Chairperson stated that the earlier form of the docu-
ment was a mixed document which sought input from Chairpersons and others who
commented on the faculty's teaching, although most of the input was from the
faculty member. The document at that point did not appear to belong to the
faculty member. One of the changes that the ad hoc committee undertook is
that they made this a faculty member's document; only the faculty member is
involved with it. Other sections of the Administrative Regulations are
proposing that the faculty member be the permanent repository of the


 Minutes, University Senate, April l3, l992

portfolio, not the Chairperson or anyone else. He added that this would not
be the only document used in the evaluation process. It is the documentation
that the faculty member has for himself or herself.

Professor Joe Davis (Agriculture Economics) stated there is a body of
expertise in teaching and one of the assumptions the committee made was it is
not easy to identify good teaching. There should be a better way to identify
those valuable faculty members, to evaluate them and get teaching into the
institutional values framework. He feels the faculty should be primarily
responsible for that and put forth what they think they do and justify what
they do as teachers. One of the reasons for the reflective statement is to
put into the hands of the faculty that ability to present to their colleagues
and administrators their qualifications, their goals and their procedures.

Professor Thrailkill stated that the debate was what is optional and what
is mandatory. It seems to him there are other documents and sources of infor-
mation, and it is important to knOw if this is the sole document upon which a
judgement will be made. In some colleges the student teaching evaluations are
pretty much how the colleges evaluate the faculty member. In the recommenda-
tions it is stated that these will be maintained by the faculty. He does not
understand how that fits into the current practice. The Chairperson stated
that that question should be deferred until the amendment is passed.

Professor Ray Betts (Humanities) suggested a brief statement that
describes those teaching methods that he/she thinks distinguishes his/her
performance and his/her approach to subject matter and its presentation. He
would drop the philosophy and the notion of objectives, because they appear on
the course syllabus. Professor Louis Chow (Mechanical Engineering) supports
the amendment and feels that teaching evaluations should be the job of the
deans. He does not feel that the faculty member should be so specific. He
does not feel there is enough emphasis on undergraduate teaching, but this
document is not the right way to accomplish that. He does not‘want the
document to be so rigid.

Professor Neil agreed with Professor Chow and wondered if faculty members
are required to write a brief reflective statement by the researcher which
describes his research assignment, sets forth philosophies or objectives, and
provides information necessary to provide colleagues with a context for inter-
preting and understanding of his/her research. He wanted to know if that is

Professor Michael Tearney (Accounting) supports Professor Chow from the
standpoint that there are so many different colleges and so many different
people teaching in different ways that he wants to see maximum flexibility.
Not only that but the statement places everything into "a laundry list" that
could be used to support the person. Professor Enid Haldhart (Communications)
feels that the dOCUment is in the form it should be and if there is ever to be
any kind of uniformity, there needs to be criteria approved. She stated that
the committee has revised the document to make it readable. She feels the
recommendations should be tried and see if they work.


 Minutes, University Senate, April 13, l992

Professor Martin McMahon (Law) feels there is room to look at the document
differently if there are fully promoted people involved. He tends to agree
with the comment about fully promoted members and the paperwork time which
could be spent more productively on other matters. He does not feel that
people who are fully promoted are going to write descriptions that are par-
ticularly helpful or meaningful in making merit pay raise decisions. As far
as dealing with promotion matters, he feels that the kind of material called
for in Item No. l is very relevant for the other faculty members, deans,
administrators to use in assessing the information that can be gathered
through, for example, student evaluations. He thinks the simple solution is
to recognize that because it is useful information and would be helpful to the
faculty member's promotion, that if it is made optional, the faculty members
who are not fully promoted will do this as a matter of self-interest. He
supports the amendment.

Professor Thomas Blues (English) stated that although the proposal
suggested a degree of uniformity to make people accountable, there are ways to
make people diverse within that uniformity. With reference to the fully
promoted faculty members to be optional, that is not what is intended. The
document suggests accountability across the board through the students and to
set up an exempt group would defray the whole spirit of the proposal.

There was no objection to voting on the amendment. In a show of hands the
amendment was defeated. In the second amendment under Item No. 2 to replace
the words, “one paragraph" with the word short, the amendment was moved,

seconded and in a hand count carried. Item 2 would then read:

”For each semester under review, a list of all courses taught,
with the title, course number, number of students enrolled, and—-for
each different course--a short description.“

In further discussion on the original motion as amended, Professor McMahon
offered an amendment to delete "including department and/or college norms and
rating scale" in Item No. 4 on page 2. It seems to him that the college and
departmental statistical data is already in the possession of the administra-
tor who will be making the decision and the phrase seems to be saying that
every faculty member is responsible for making a copy of that information and
putting it into their packet for the year. He was trying to eliminate the
photocopying. Professor Davis stated that it was the committee's intent to
make sure that the norms and the rating scale have a uniform approach across
campus. He does not see that would be a problem. The Chairperson wanted to
know if deleting "review or" would achieve the objective. Since that was not
accepted, the Chairperson stated the material would be in the AR's for
promotion and tenure but not for merit evaluation. The amendment was
seconded. In comments on that amendment Professor Neil does not see why it is
needed for promotion and tenure and wanted to know why that had to be the
faculty member's responsibility. There were no further comments and the
amendment carried in a voice vote. Professor Glenn Bloomquist (Economics)
feels that the point is that while many departments do report that information
in their files, in past not all have; he feels there is still some way that
the information on norms would be in colleges and departments but not as part
of the file. He thinks the distinction has been made between merit review


 Minutes, University Senate, April l3, 1992

annually and a promotion when it occurs and involves people outside the
college. He argued to keep the phrase when it involves an area committee
review for promotion.

Professor Davis stated that the committee's feeling is that this statement
gives the people who are evaluating their colleagues material with some idea
of where the information falls. Point of order was called and wanted to know
if it was proper to have a discussion after the vote. The Chairperson ruled
that the previous vote was indecisive. There was no more discussion and the
amendment failed in a show of hands.

In further discussion of the total teaching portfolio as amended,
Professor Moody suggested that the Senate as a body approve the proposal as
amended because it has been discussed long and hard. It was brought to the
Senate in the fall, an ad hoc committee has looked at it, and it is a tremen-
dous step in the right direction. He feels it equalizes teaching and
research, which is something the campus has not had except lip service for
many, many years. He knows it is difficult to equate research and teaching,
but everyone knows that research is more objective. To him, the proposal is a
tremendous step forward, and he would like to see the Senate accept it.

Professor Chow wanted to know if it was too late for an amendment. He
feels that teaching is very, very important, but he feels this is the wrong
way to go. He does not feel the Senate should force itself to include this or
that. He feels the key is where the dean or chancellor emphasizes teaching.

He feels making the proposal mandatory is the wrong thing to do. He feels it
would make the faculty spend a lot of time on the_teaching portfolio. His
amendment was to make everything optional. The amendment was seconded. The‘
Chairperson stated that the amendment was to make all the required or sug-
gested elements optional. Professor McMahon opposed the amendment because he
does not feel that someone should have the option of including teaching
materials o