xt72jm23fg13 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt72jm23fg13/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1973-04-09  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 9, 1973 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 9, 1973 1973 1973-04-09 2020 true xt72jm23fg13 section xt72jm23fg13 3533 Minutes of the University Senate, March 12, 1973 — cont

He asked, further, that these recommendations be submitted quickly so that W
they could be incorporated into the Senate Council's recommendations to be ‘53:!

circulated to the faculty at large.

The Senate adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL 9, 1973

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, ‘
April 9, 1973, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Adelstein Min
presided. Members absent: Staley F. Adams, Arnold D. Albright, Lawrence A. ' '”
Allen*, Charles L. Atcher*, Harry H. Bailey, Roger W. Barbour*, James R. 1
Barclay*, Charles E. Barnhart, Robert P. Belin*, Thomas G. Berry? Robert H.
Biggerstaff*, Wesley J. Birge*, Harry M. Bohannan, Robert N. Bostrom*, Louis L.
Boyarsky, Garnett L. Bradford*, Charles A. Brinde1*, Sally Brown, Lowell P.
Bush*, David B. Clark*, Lewis W. Cochran, José M. Concon, Glenwood L. Creech,
James E. Criswell*, M. Ward Crowe, Guy M. Davenport*, R. Lewis Donohew*,
Anthony Eardley, William Ecton, Robert 0. Evans*, Jeannette Fallen, Juanita
Fleming*, Lawrence E. Forgy, Stuart Forth, John B. Fritschner, James E. Funk*,
George H. Gadbois*, Eugene Gallagher*, Art Gallaher, Jr.*, Willie A. Gates,
John G. Gattozzi*, Hans Gesund*, Thomas C. Gray, Jack B. Hall, Joseph Hamburg,
Ellwood M. Hammaker, S. Zafar Hasan*, Maurice A. Hatch, Charles F. Haywood*,
Eileen Heise, James W. Herron, Andrew J. Hiatt, Kate T. Irvine*, Raymon D.
Johnson, Margaret Jones*, Fred E. Justus, Irving F. Kanner*, James D. Kemp,
James B. Kincheloe*, Robert W. Kiser, Aimo J. Kiviniemi*, Harold Laswell*,
Robert G. Lawson, Harold Leggett, Albert S. Levy*, Donald L. Madden*, John L.
Madden, Maurice K. Marshall*, William L. Matthews, David Mattingly, Ernest P. .
McCutcheon*, Marion E. McKenna*, Michael P. McQuillen*, Ann L. Moore*, Thomas P. ‘¢;fla
Mullaney*, Patrick Mullin*, Vernon A. Musselman, Arthur F. Nicholson*, Elbert W.
Ockerman*, James R. Ogletree*, Blaine F. Parker*, J. W. Patterson, Michael Pease,

Bertram Peretz*, Carl Peter*, N. J. Pisacano, Virginia Rogers*, Gerald I. Roth*,
Robert W. Rudd, Michael J. Ryan, John S. Scarborough, Donald S. Shannon, D.
Milton Shuffett*, Gerard E. Silberstein*, Otis A. Singletary*, A. H. Peter
Skelland, Robert H. Spedding*, Alan Stein, Marjorie S. Stewart, Hugh A. Storrow*,
Dennis Stuckey*, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Lawrence X. Tarpey, John Thrailkill*,
Nancy Totten*, Harold H. Traurig*, Stephen J. Vasek, Jacinto J. Vazquez*,

William F. Wagner, M. Stanley Wall, Daniel L. Weiss, David R. Wekstein*, Scott
Wendelsdorf*, Harry E. Wheeler*, Raymond A. Wilkie, Miroslava B. Winer, William W.
Winternitz*, Ernest F. Witte*, A. Wayne Wonderley*, Fred Zechman*, Leon Zolondek*,
Robert G. Zumwinkle*.

 

 

 

 

The minutes of the meeting of March 12, 1973 were approved as circulated.

Chairman Adelstein referred to the first item on the agenda, that of the fifliw
Jewell Report circulated to the faculty by the Senate Council under date of ‘

*Absence explained

 

  

N5

Minutes of the University Senate, April 9, 1973 — cont 3534

March 26, 1973. He stated that each Recommendation would be presented
separately for discussion and vote. He then called on Mr. Howell Hopson,
Secretary, Senate Council, to present the first Recommendation.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 1., as recommended by the Jewell Report and the Senate Council,
be approved. This Recommendation would apportion Senators among the colleges
on the basis of two factors: (1) the number of full—time teaching and/or
research faculty with the rank of assistant professor or higher in the various
colleges and the University Libraries; and (2) the number of full-time students
enrolled in each college; students enrolled in the Graduate School would be
assigned to the college in which they are pursuing their studies.

The Senate approved Recommendation 1., as presented.

On behalf of the Senate Council Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 2., which spoke to the size and quorum of the Senate, be approved
as recommended by the Jewell Report and the Senate Council. This Recommendation
would reduce faculty representation on the Senate from 160 to 120, student
representation from 25 to 22, and the quorum from 75 to 60.

A Senator presented an amendment to reduce the Senate membership by the same
percentage across the board which would reduce the student membership to 19,

the ex officio membership to 16, and the quorum to 56. Following Dr. Jewell's
explanation of how further reduction in student membership would create serious
imbalances in college representation and the impracticality of reducing ex officio
representation, the Senate defeated the amendment by a vote of 39 to 32.

Call was raised of whether there was a quorum present. The Sergeant at Arms
reported that a count on the attendance sheets indicated the presence of a quorum.

Following discussion of the original motion in which three Senators rose to speak
against the motion, a student Senator raised the question of how the Senate would
function with the proposal in the Jewell Report that all Senators would be on
Committees, if the Senate membership were kept at its present membership. Dr.
Jewell replied that the Committee structure would probably be enlarged or the
Committee membership increased.

The Senate then voted to retain the membership at its present size and quorum,
namely, 160 faculty, 25 students, and a quorum of 75.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 3., which spoke to Senate Committee structure, be approved. The
Chairman pointed out that this Recommendation differed from the original Jewell
Report in that the Council was recommending that the Committees on Academic
Programs; Academic Planning and Priorities; and Academic Organization and Structure
not be established and that the Senate Council retain these responsibilities;
further the Council was recommending that the Committee on Libraries be retained
instead of reorganizing it as a subcommittee under the Committee on Academic
Facilities, and that a Committee on General Studies be established.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 
   
 
   
 
   
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
  
  
 
 
   
   
 
 
 
 
  
  
 

Minutes of the University Senate, April 9, 1973 — cont

Dr. Jewell stated that on behalf of the Committee he wished to present an

amendment to add to the list of committees in the original motion the

Committees on Academic Programs; Academic Planning and Priorities; and 65%“
Academic Organization and Structure. The Chairman stated that he would
accept this as three separate amendments and ask that the Senate vote on
them separately.

The Senate was then asked to consider the amendment to add the Committee on
Academic Programs. The Senate voted to amend the original motion to add the
Committee on Academic Programs.

The Senate considered the amendment to add the Committee on Planning and Priorities.

During consideration, Dr. Sears, Assistant to the President, pointed out that a
new Commission on Institutional Planning, appointed last year by the Board of
Trustees and reporting to the President, was engaged in the same considerations;
thus, the formulation of such a Senate Committee would be redundant. Dr. Jewell
pointed out that the Senate also had to be concerned with long—range thinking ‘gflk
and planning; that one of the recommendations of his Committee was that the 9*
"Senate establish guidelines and criteria to be used by the Senate and its
councils and committees in making recommendations concerning the adoption, im— L
provement, and review of academic programs" and this would be one of the functions

of such a committee.

A Senator pointed out that the Senate was being asked to consider the question of
organizational structure in one committee, program details in a second committee,

and level of priorities and broad guidelines in a third committee; that these

separate reports would be coming to the Senate without review by the Senate Council
(under the guidelines contained in the Jewell Report) and he was raising the questim1 f
of the point at which these three separate reports would be pulled together in order

to be considered by the Senate. He stated that he thought a Committee on Academic
Affairs should be established and these three committees be made subcommittees of

that committee.

The Senate voted to amend the original motion to add the Committee on Academic '
Planning and Priorities. g,“
The Senate was asked to consider the amendment to add the Committee on Academic

Organization and Structure and without debate the Senate voted to amend the
original motion to add the Committee on Academic Organization and Structure.

Motion was made to amend the original motion, as amended, to combine the three
previously established Committees —- The Committee on Academic Programs; the
Committee on Academic Planning and Priorities; and the Committee on Academic
Organization and Structure —— into one body to be called the standing Committee on
Academic Affairs, and that that body have three standing subcommittees, namely, y
Academic Programs; Academic Planning and Priorities; and Academic Organization and
Structure.

The Senate defeated this amendment to the original motion, as amended.

The Senate then approved the original motion, as amended. The motion as approved 4:?!
and amended supersedes the former standing and advisory committees of the Senate ‘

with the exception of the Senate Advisory Committee on Privilege and Tenure, and
establishes the following Senate standing committees:

  

     
  
  
  
   
  
   
    
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
  
  
 
   
  
 
   
  
 
   
   
  
  
   
  
 
   

an

Les.

Minutes of the University Senate, April 9, 1973 — cont

Rules and Elections Academic Facilities

Admissions and Academic Standards Library

Student Affairs Research

Teaching, Learning, and Advising General Studies

Special Teaching Programs Academic Programs

Community Colleges Academic Planning and Priorities

Academic Organization and Structure

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 4., as recommended by the Jewell Report and the Senate Council,
be adopted. This Recommendation refers to ad hoc committees and reads as
follows:

The Senate Council shall refer all appropriate issues to the
standing committees unless an issue arises that is clearly not
within the jurisdiction of one of the standing committees, or un—
less an issue demands such immediate attention that the appropriate
committee in the View of its chairman would be unable to report on
it in time.

A Senator pointed out that while the Recommendation implied that an ad_hgg
committee could be appointed should "an issue arise that is clearly not
within the jurisdiction of one of the standing committees, or unless an
issue demanded such immediate attention that the appropriate committee in
the View of its chairman would be unable to report on it in time" it did not
so state and that he would amend the motion to so state this.

Chairman Adelstein stated that on behalf of the Senate Council he would accept
an editorial change to add a sentence at the end of the Recommendation to read
essentially as follows. This was acceptable to the Senator presenting the
proposed amendment.

In the event that either of these two situations arise, the Senate
Council shall refer the issue to an ad hoc committee which it shall
appoint.

With this editorial change the Senate then voted to accept Recommendation 4.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson recommended adoption of
Recommendation 5. which refers to the composition of the Senate Committees.
He stated that it was divided into four sections, namely, A, B, C, and D.

Chairman Adelstein stated that he would ask the Senate to consider A separately,
in which the Council is recommending two changes from the Jewell Report: 1.
Specifying the number of committee members, and 2. providing for three non—
senators on the committees.

Dr. Jewell presented a motion to amend Recommendation 5. to add to the motion,

Each Senate committee will include only senators, including faculty,
administrative and student senators. Normally, a senator will serve

on only one committee. Subcommittees that are established on either a
permanent or an §d_hgg basis will include senators, and, where appropriate,
may include non—senators (faculty, students and administrators).

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
 
  
  
 
  
   
 
  
  
    
  
   
 
 
 
   
  
  
   
  
   
   
   
  
 
    
 

 

 

 

 
 
   
   
 

 

3537

   

Minutes of the University Senate, April 9, 1973 - cont

and to delete all references in sections A, B, C, and D to the number
of members for each committee and subcommittee, and to delete all re—
ferences in Sections A, B, C, and D to the appointment of non—senators. 43

 

Extensive debate ensued centered around the construction of section A
editorially.

An amendment to the amendment was presented and approved to add the
following sentence to section A:

The number of members on each Senate Committee shall be determined
by the Senate Council.

Following further debate the Senate voted to delete all reference in sections,
A, B, C, and D to the number of members for each committee and subcommittee
and to delete all reference in sections A, B, C, and D to appointment of
non—senators. Sections A, B, C, and D as amended and approved, read:

Recommendation A; Each Senate Committee except for the Committee 6flh
on Special Teaching Programs, the Committee on Academic Facilities, w‘"
and the General Studies Committee shall be composed of members from

the Senate (faculty, student, and administrative senators). Sub—

committees that are established on either a permanent or an ad_hgg

basis will include senators, and, where appropriate, may include
non—senators (faculty, students and administrators). The number of

members on each Senate Committee shall be determined by the Senate

Council. Preferably, each of these committees should contain a

student and an untenured faculty member.

Recommendation E; The Committee on Special Teaching Programs shall
consist of the following five standing sub—committees: Sub—Committee :
on Honors; Sub-Committee on International Programs: Sub—Committee on
Cooperative Teaching Programs; Sub—Committee on Experiential Learning

and Intern Programs; Sub—Committee on Off—Campus Instruction.

Recommendation 9; The Committee on Academic Facilities shall con—

sist of the following three standing sub—committees: Sub—Committee eg!‘
on Computer Facilities; Sub—Committee on Instructional Resources;

Sub—Committee on Physical Plant and Space Utilization.

Recommendation 2; The General Studies Committee shall consist of
seven standing sub—committees, one for each area in the General
Studies program.

Motion was made to amend the amendment to include in sections B, C, and D

a statement that the majority of each subcommittee of the Senate, whether
established on a permanent or ad hoc basis, shall consist of members of the
Senate. The Senate approved this-amendment to the amendment. ‘

The Senate then voted to approve all of Recommendation 5. as amended three
times.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 6., as recommended by the Jewell Report and the Senate
Council, be approved. It refers to appointment to Senate Committees and
reads as follows:

 

  

  

ns,

 

Minutes of the University Senate, April 9, 1973 — cont 3538

The Senate Council will appoint the chairman and members of the
Senate standing committees, but will consult with the President
in appointing senators who are administrators to these committees,
and will consult the President of the student body in appointing
student senators. The Senate Council will honor to the extent
possible the committee preference of senators.

Motion was made and approved to amend the paragraph to delete the phrase
". . . and will consult the President of the student body in appointing
student senators. . ."

The Chairman stated that the Chairman of GSA and the President of Student
Government were in favor of this deletion and of having the Senate Council
appoint the student senators.

The Senate then approved Recommendation 6., as amended.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 7., which speaks to term of office for Senate Committees,
be approved as recommended by the Jewell Report and the Senate Council with
the exception that the Senate Council has recommended that student senators
serving more than one term may request transfer to another committee.

The Senate approved Recommendation 7. as presented which reads as follows:

Faculty senators will normally serve a three—year term on a committee,
coinciding with their three—year term in the Senate. If elected to a
second consecutive three—year term, a faculty senator can continue to
serve on the same committee, or request transfer to another. Adminis—
'trative senators will normally serve on the same committee unless they
wish to do otherwise. Student senators who serve more than one term
may request transfer to another committee.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 8., which speaks to operation of sub-committees of Senate
Committees, be approved as recommended by the Jewell Report and the Senate
Council. Following discussion in which it was agreed that it should be
made clearer editorially and that the word "three" in the first line should
be deleted as a result of the action in Recommendation 5., the Senate voted
to approve Recommendation 8, which reads as follows:

The standing committees with permanent subcommittees (see Recommendation
5. B, C, D) will have a general chairman but no members other than those
assigned to the various subcommittees. The subcommittee chairmen shall
be appointed by the Senate Council in consultation with the chairman of
the committee, who shall serve as an ex officio member of each sub—
committee. Subcommittee reports must be reviewed and acted upon by

the entire committee before being transmitted to the Senate Council.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 9., which speaks to ad_hg£ subcommittees of Senate Committees,
be approved as recommended by the Jewell Report and the Senate Council. The
Senate approved Recommendation 9. as presented which reads as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

3539 Minutes of the University Senate, April 9, 1973 — cont

The chairman of any committee may establish a subcommittee and may
select its members in consultation with the chairman of the Senate
Council. However, this subcommittee should be chaired by a member
of the parent committee.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 10., which speaks to the authority of the Senate Committees,
be approved as recommended by the Jewell Report and the Senate Council, with
the addition by the Senate Council that it may introduce an issue to the
Senate. The Senate approved Recommendation 10. as presented which reads as

follows:

Senate Committees must act on all issues prior to their coming before

the Senate except that the Senate Council may introduce an issue.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 11., which speaks to committee report presentation, as
recommended by the Jewell Report and the Senate Council, be approved.

Motion was made to amend Recommendation 11., to delete the last sentence,
which the Senate disapproved. The Senate then voted to approve Recommendation

11. as presented which reads as follows:

A committee shall have the privilege of presenting its report to the
Senate after it has been reviewed by the Senate Council. The Senate

Council shall present recommendations for action by the Senate.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that

Recommendation 12., which speaks to committee reports, as recommended by the

Senate Council and the Jewell Report, be approved. The Senate approved
Recommendation 12., as presented, which reads as follows:

The Senate Council is responsible for planning the Senate agenda but if

it fails to present a committee report during three regular Senate
meetings after it has been submitted, then the committee may bring
its report directly to the floor of the Senate at any subsequent

meeting provided that the report has been appropriately circulated
in advance.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
Recommendation 13., which speaks to individual privilege to introduce a
proposal to the Senate Council, be approved as recommended by the Jewell

Committee and the Senate Council. The Senate voted to approve Recommendation

13. as presented, which reads as follows:

Any student, faculty member or administrator may present a written

recommendation for Senate action to the Senate Council. The Council

may refer it to committee or act on it itself. If referred to
committee, the committee shall approve, disapprove, or modify the
recommendation. The original recommendation with committee action

shall be forwarded to the Senate Council. The recommendation shall be
placed on the Senate agenda unless both the committee and the Council
determine otherwise. If the Council itself acts on the recommendation,
it can decide not to place the matter on the agenda. In this situation,
the recommendation may be introduced on the Senate floor if its initiator

     
 
   
  
 
 
   
  
   
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
   
 
 
  
  
 
 
   
  
  
 
   
    
   
 

  

  

Minutes of the University Senate, April 9, 1973 — cont 3540

obtains the signatures of ten Senators.

Mr. Hopson referred to Recommendation 14., which speaks to the com-
position of the Senate Council, and which differs from the Jewell Report.
He suggested that since it contained several points which are in question,
he would recommend that it be voted on point by point. On behalf of the
Senate Council, he then presented a motion that the following first phrase
in Recommendation 14., be approved.

"The Senate Council shall be composed of nine faculty members elected
by the faculty of the University Senate, . ."

Dr. Jewell stated that on behalf of the Committee he wished to present an
amendment to delete this phrase and to accept the proposal contained in
the Jewell Report of February 25, 1973, page 12, paragraph 6.

A Senator rose to point out the lateness of the hour and the fact that the
Senators were becoming fatigued and recommended that the Senate adjourn.
The Senate approved this recommendation and adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Kathryne W. Shelburne
Recording Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ‘Hu

Uh‘

n, -'/'7 ' ~. t , ~,-..,,...1‘., ~
1.913 wave which. L...1..'.£;LL4L"/K £5.)
S. Sidney Ulmer
Professor

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 UN‘VERS’TV or: KEN-'UCKY fiCE’I‘WE

LEXlNGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNH'ERSITY SENATE COUNClL

Vi"! ADMlNISTRATION BUILDING

March 27, 1973

Members, University Senate
Senate Council Office

AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, April 9,
1973

The following resolution was submitted to the Senate Council
which decided not to take a position on it but to place it on the
agenda of the April 9th Senate meeting:

"Be it resolved that the University Senate request that the
appropriate University officials make every possible effort to make
available to Student Advisory Committees office space whereever
and whenever possible. Preferably this office space should be lo—
cated as close as possible to the offices of the College or Depart—
ment with which the Student Advisory Committee is affiliated.

The University Senate Advisory Committee on Student Affairs
shall periodically review and report to the University Senate on the
implementation of this action and suggest what, if any, further action
it deems appropriate. "

RATIONALE: The goal of a Student Advisory Committee should be to
serve as an intermediary vehicle for student expression concerning
academic issues. To meet such a goal it is necessary that Student

Advisory Committees not only offer student assistance to the faculty

but that they also advise the students whom they represent of the
various University and departmental issues and curricular needs. In
this way it is hoped that lower division students particularly will
benefit from first—hand advice which we further believe will raise the
quality of advising on the Departmental devel (which it already has
done in the English and Political Science Departments). However, it
is also clear that to serve this aspect of student advising, the Student
Advisory Committee must have an office.

 

 Senate Agenda, 3/27/73

With all of their complex activities Student Advisory Committees
must keep records. Office space is then needed for a centralized
filing system that will not be gone as soon as a group graduates
or leaves school.

In order that theissues of academic concern may be discussed, an

informal meeting ground is needed for student discourse with facul—
ty as well as among themselves. It is hoped that Student Advisory

Committee office space will help to satisfy this need.

Chairman

University Senate Council
Room 10 Administration Building

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL

IO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

March 2 6, 1973

Members, University
The Senate Council

AGENDA ITEM; University Senate Meeting, April 9,

1973: Recommendations on the Reorganization of the
Senate.

After a thorough study of the report from the Ad Hoc Committee on
the Status and Functions of the Senate (hereafter referred to as the
Jewell Report), and a review of the March 12 Senate meeting, the
Senate Council proposes the following recommendations;

1. Apportionment of the Senate
Recommendation: The faculty senators shall be apportioned
among the colleges on the basis of the following two factors,
which shall be given equal weight: (1) the number of full—
time teaching and/or research faculty with the rank of assis-
tant professor or higher in the various colleges and the
University Libraries; (2) the number of full-time students enrolled
in each college. For this appointment, students enrolled in the Grad-
uate School shall be assigned to the college in which they are pursuing
their studies.
Commentary: This recommendation is substantially the same
as that offered in the Jewell Report (see pp. 14—15) except that
graduate students are now included.

,JL 2. Senate —- Size and Quorum
Recommendation: Faculty representation in the Senate shall be
V, Cb reduced from the present number of 160 to 120, student repre—
\

, sentation from the present 25 to 22, and the quorum from 75 to
KIA/RIB) 60.

\fiQ‘

‘\

v 0/

t

. \‘(Q’ . .
[30¢ {/61 Commentary: This recommendation and arguments for it may
1’ T7 1 C/Vbc found in tho Jewell Report (pp. 13-15).

,/

 

 Page 2 Jewell, 3/26/73

3. Senate Committee Structure
Recommendation: The following Senate standing committees
would supersede existing standing and advisory committees
except for the Senate Advisory Committee on Privilege and
Tenure, which will remain as described in the Senate Rules,
Section I, 4. 28.

A. Rules and Elections: responsible for codifying and inter—
preting rules, and recommending election policies and
procedures.

Admissions and Academic Standards: responsible for
rules on admission requirements, grading, credit hours
and other matters covered in Sections IV and V of the
Senate Rules.

Student Affairs: same charge as stated in Section I,
4. 21 of the Senate Rules.

Teaching, Learning, and Advising: responsible for studies
and recommendations designed to improve these areas.

S_Recial Teaching Programs: responsible for Honors Program,
International Programs,Cooperative Teaching Programs
(inter~college), Off—Campus Instruction (extension, etc. ),
Experiential Learning and Intern Programs.

Community Colleges: same charge as stated in Section I,
4. 25 of the Senate Rules.

Academic Facilities: responsible for Computer Facilities
(development and allocation of computer resources), In—
structional Resources (television and other instructional
aids), Physical Plant and Space Utilization.

Library: same charge as stated in Section I, 4. 12 of the
Senate Rules.

Research: responsible for studies and recommendations
concerning University research policies.

General Studies: responsible for studies and recommenda—
tions concerning the General Studies Program.

 

 Page 3 Jewell, 3/26 /73

Commentary: These committees are Similar to those proposed
in the Jewell Report except for the following changes:

1. The recommendation proposing the establishment of a
committee on Academic Programs is not accepted. The
Senate Council believes that it should retain this important
responsibility because of the complex and sensitive nature
of program evaluations.

2. The recommendation proposing the establishment of a
committee on Academic Planning and Priorities is not ac-
cepted. The Senate Council believes that it should retain
responsibility for planning and priorities. The Council is
in the best position to coordinate its efforts with those of
the Task Force on Planning and with the work of the Office
of Institutional Planning.

3. The recommendation proposing the establishment of

a committee on Academic Organization and Structure is
not accepted. The Senate Council believes that it should
retain the important responsibility of reviewing proposals
for new academic units and for Changes in existing college
and departmental structure.

4. The Council is recommending that a separate committee
be retained for the Library instead of reorganizing it as a
sub-committee under the Committee on Academic Facilities.
The Senate Library Committee has been active and valuable
in the past. In addition, the Library is so highly important
to the University that the Council believes that this committee
should not be reduced to sub-committee status.

5. The Council is recommending that a General Studies Com-
mittee be established to study and propose recommendations
about the General Studies. This recommendation is contained

in a report by an ad hoc committee on the General Studies. It
will provide for a systematic and on—going review of the Uni-
versity's General Studies requirement.

4. Senate Committees —— Ad Hoc

Recommendation: The S