xt737p8tf02j https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt737p8tf02j/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1976-05-03  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, May 3, 1976 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, May 3, 1976 1976 1976-05-03 2020 true xt737p8tf02j section xt737p8tf02j  



.» r-__-__ ’ ‘ p.”gimflggvm..."W’s—”-mvmwgms . .._,.. \vl‘7',v."""" -~---"“- ' '


The University Senate met in called session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, May 3, 1976,
in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Jewell presided. Members absent:
Gerald Ashdown*, Ruth Assell*, Brad Austin, John G. Banwell*, Charles E. Barnhart,
Jerry M. Baskin*, Robert P. Belin*, Joanne Bell, Robert S. Benton, Juris Berzins*,
Norman F. Billups,* Jack C. Blanton, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Robert N. Bostrom, Garnett
L. Bradford*, Joseph T. Burch, H. Stuart Burness*, Carl Cabe*, D. Kay Clawson,
Michael Clawson, Frank Colton*, Ronda S. Connaway*, Samuel F. Conti*, Alfred L. Crabb*,
Donald P. Cross, M. Ward Crowe, Vincent Davis*, Robert J. DeAngelis, Patrick P. DeLuca,
George W. Denemark, Roland Duell*, Mary Duffy, Anthony Eardley, Jane M. Emanuel*,
Diane Eveland, Paul Fraysure*, Fletcher R. Gabbard*, Claudine Gartner*, Dennis George*,
James Gibson*, James Gladden*, John L. Greenway, Ward 0. Griffen*, Joseph Hamburg,
George W. Hardy, Beth Hicks, Nancy Holland, Sara L. Holroyd*, Raymond R. Hornback,
David Howard, Margaret W. Jones*, David T. Kao, Don Kirkendall, James Knoblett*,
Theodore A. Kotchen*, Austin S. Litvak*, William Lyons, Michael C. McCord*, Randolph
McGee*, Marion E. McKenna*, Gwen E. MEad, James Metry, Stacie Meyer, Robert C. Noble*,
Jacqueline A. Noonan, Elbert W. Ockerman*, Janet Patterson, Margie Peak, Paul M.
Pinney, Jean Pival*, Jeanne Rachford, Daniel R. Reedy*, Frank J. Rizzo, Ellen Roehrig*,
JoAnn Rogers, David F. Ross, John S. Scarborough, John Serkland, Gerard E. Silberstein,
Otis A. Singletary*, John T. Smith*, David Spaeth*, John B. Stephenson, Sharon Stevens,
William Stober*, John P. Strickland*, Louis J. Swift, Harold H. Traurig*, Kristin
Valentine*, Earl Vastbinder*, M. Stanley Wall, Julie Watkins*, M. O'Neal Weeks,
Matthew Welch, Kennard Wellons*, Judith Worell*, Kenneth R. Wright, Fred Sechman.

The minutes of the regular meeting of April 12, 1976 were accepted as circu—
lated with the correction of the word ”autocratic" to "autonomous” in the last line
of the fifth full paragraph on page 9.

The Chairman reported to the Senate as follows:

There are three or four items the Senate Council has been dealing with
that I want to call to your attention. The first involves a proposed amend—
ment to the Governing Regulations. There is another one which we will be
dealing with today. The first one came to the attention of the Senate Council
who looked at it and decided that we did not need to take time on it but
simply report to you that the Board of Trustees will be considering at its
next meeting many of the Governing Regulations to make it clear that the
Student Code will no longer apply to students ngt_on the Lexington campus.
Specifically, it will no longer include students at Ft. Knox, or off—campus
extension students. We could see no objection to this and are simply reporting
this to you.

There is also a very slight amendment to the Senate Rules, which the
Rules Committee and the Senate Council have approved, to clarify an ambiguity
in the Senate Rules about when the secretary of the Senate Council is chosen.
We are going to have a secretary—elect chosen at the same time the chairman—
elect is chosen, namely, in March preceding the time they take office in
January. The existing Rule is vague and has been followed even more vaguely.

More exciting than this for you——you will be glad to know that the
Rules of the University Senate are going to be put on a computer so that
those 6? us—who care about the Senate Rules can, at any moment, find out
exactly how they are worded at that time so that we can keep up—to—date
an amended version. It should also facilitate reprinting those parts that


*Absence explained.


. ,. . . w, Wm... .


 -.:iummwlwr '
"r - A) ,. . .












-- :‘aA-Ir-vuaamm ,1“: AM, ”1M4“. mum-r

Minutes of the University Senate, May 3, 1976 — cont

are reprinted every year to circulate to you. It should, eventually, facilitate

such things as interpretations of the Rules, keeping records of these, even finding
the dates of amendments to the Rules, so that we can trace the history of it. This
kind of thing we have discovered from sad experience, is sometimes hard to find Out.

There is a feeling that, to a large degree, the existing rules regarding regu—
lating students in the academic requirements of various kinds, apply primarily to
undergraduates; and that in some cases, the Rules need to be expanded or amended to
clarify distinct rules that may be pertinent to professional or graduate students.
An example would be the recently adopted rule of the Graduate School concerning pro—
bation for graduate students which will be submitted to the Senate for incorporation
in the Senate Rules next fall. This problem will be studied early in the fall, if
not before, and I call it to your attention so that if you have any input you want

to make about it, you may send us a note.

I would like to make a brief announcement concerning the protocol of the Senate.

The Senate Council discussed some time ago, and decided to put into effect in the
fall, a slightly different procedure for handling memorial resolutions. In the
future when we get a memorial resolution it will be submitted to the Chairman who
will briefly state the basic information in it. The resolution, itself, will be
entered in the minutes of the Senate and, therefore, be available to all members
of the faculty, as the minutes are. But the resolution, as such, will not be read
at the Senate meeting. We will also continue the custom of standing for a moment
of silence but we will not read the resolutions on the floor of the Senate.

This is the final Senate meeting for some of you whose term is coming to an
end. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your contributions to the
Senate, in most cases, over the last three years. We appreciate the contributions
you have made. There are a lot of thankless jobs in the University and I think
serving on the Senate, like so many of the other committee assignments, fits into

that category.

At this time I would like to call on Dr. Paul Sears who has a Resolution to
present to the Senate.

I have the honor to read a Resolution on behalf of the University

This meeting of the University Senate on May 3, 1976, is the finale
for one person among us whose association with this body is unparalleled in
its history. For twenty years, Mrs. Kathryne (Kitty) Shelburne has served
as Recording Secretary of the University Senate. Prior to that, she served
for five years in this capacity on a substitute basis.

During her twenty years as Recording Secretary, the number of Senate
meetings has ranged from eight to twenty—three meetings per year and Kitty
has been at her station at all but two of these meetings. Her devotion to
duty and exemplary fulfillment of responsibility with respect to her role
as Recording Secretary is indeed unique for an organization such as this.

Throughout these years, Kitty has established the reputation of knowing
more about the Senate — its actions and its current rules than any other
person. Prior to the creation of the University Senate Council, she main—
tained the only complete records of the Senate's actions. Those who needed
information about the Senate have always called on her. Since the advent
of the Senate Council, her recordkeeping responsibilities have diminished
somewhat, yet her files are the most complete available on matters such as:




te. ‘


.n.~-,.-.-- «up,

W~o————~W—ynaP-“m'nx‘xgxnm.~wv—wg---W*I""-0v~~I .. . . . ,

. . . 4073
Minutes of the Univers1ty Senate, May 3, 1976 ~ cont

academic programs and courses approved by the Senate; Senate elections
and membership; eligibilities of persons for various elections; and other
pertinent concerns of the Senate.

Since the establishment of the Senate Council, each chairman of
the Council has found Kitty to be most helpful. She has always gone out
of her way to provide information and resource material and, yet, at the
same time she has never been known to attempt to interfere with or impose
her way on the internal workings of the Senate or its Council.

Mrs. Shelburne has been associated with the University of Kentucky
for thirty—two years: 1945—1951 with the Stenographic Bureau, where
she was Director at one time, and since 1951 in several capacities with
the Registrar's office. She is planning to retire on June 30, 1976.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, let us rise to recognize Mrs. Shelburne
for her many contributions to the University Senate and to the University
of Kentucky. Let us express to her, with a round of applause, our
gratitude for her devotion, her integrity, her accurate minutes and
records, and her cooperation and, last but not least, for her as a

The Chairman moved to the first action item on the agenda, that of the recom—
mendation to amend the Governing Regulations defining academic year (circulated
to the faculty under date of April 27, 1976). He stated that he would need a
motion from the floor to suspend the ten—day Rule in order to consider this item.
Motion was made and approved to suspend the Rule. The Chairman then recognized
Professor Paul Oberst, Secretary, Senate Council, who recommended, on behalf
of the Senate Council, that the Senate notify the President of its approval of
the following proposed amendments to the Governing Regulations to be adopted in
place of those received for consideration at the April 6, 1976 meeting of the
Board of Trustees.

(a) Amend PART X—C (page 36) to read:
C. Conditions of Employment
1. Terms of Assignment

Academic assignments are made on academic year, ten month,
and twelve month basis.

2. Vacation Leave

All full—time appointees on a ten month or a twelve month
academic assignment basis shall be entitled to a one—month
vacation leave with pay. Vacation leave cannot be accumu-
lated. All members of the teaching faculty shall be in
actual attendance at least until after commencement and
until all reports have been made, and at least three days
prior to the first day of registration for the fall sem—
ester unless for special reasons special leave is approved.

Full—time faculty members employed on an academic year basis
shall be on assignment from August 16 through May 15 and are
expected to be normally available for participation in

 .‘. .7 ..:le.4>-VRL.1:.‘§?4 “as,"



. i

Minutes of the University Senate, May 3, 1976 — cont

appropriate academic activities during this period. To [
insure opportunities for vacations, faculty members em—
ployed on this basis shall be limited to two months of IA‘
employment in activities funded by the University or its 4®\.,
affiliated corporations during the summer period (May 16 {
through August 15). 1


3. Professional Practices l

During their annual assignment period (whether academic year,
ten months or twelve months), faculty and research staff I
members are expected to serve the University. It is assumed ‘
that all persons on the academic staff will be interested ‘
primarily in the work of their respective educational units, (
giving their chief efforts to the promotion of that work. i

(No further changes in this section.) [

and 39) to read:


(b) Amend the third and fourth paragraphs of PART X—C—S—a (pages 38 «a

After six years of continuous eligible service, an individual

may apply for one year's leave (academic year for appointees l

on academic year or ten month assignments) at one—half salary 1

or six months' leave (academic semester for appointees on

academic year or ten month assignments) at full salary. After ‘

three years of continuous eligible service, an appointee may

apply for six months' leave (academic semester for appointees

on academic year or ten month assignments) at one—half salary.

"Continuous service" is interrupted by a sabbatical leave, {

i.e., no service prior to a sabbatical leave may be credited

toward eligibility for future sabbatical leave. Leaves of [

absence without pay are not normally credited toward eligibility (


for sabbatical leave. However, exception may be made when the

leave enhances the value of the individual to the University,

e.g., a leave to accept a fellowship or a grant, service for

professional organizations, etc. In no case shall the leave ‘EA‘

of absence without pay be considered as an interruption of ‘

continuous service. I


Sabbatical leaves shall not be used as a means of augmenting
personal income. A recipient may not accept gainful employ—
ment during the sabbatical leave (for an individual on an
academic year assignment basis this does not include the period
of May 16 through August 15; for an individual on a ten month
assignment basis this does not include the period of vacation
and the two months outside the assignment period each fiscal
year; for an individual on a twelve month assignment basis this d
not include the onewmonth vacation period) except as follows: I

085 I

(No further changes in this section) I

In discussion which followed a Senator raised the question of why the change ‘»9\
in the definition of the employment period. Vice PreSident Donald Clapp responded I
that the basic reason for it runs to the amount of compensation faculty members {
are eligible for primarily from extramural sources. Under the current 10—month .
contract the regulation provides that there is a month's vacation in that 10 monthS- r








s does I
1 l


my”... ,r,.:.,._.,....... .....m........... .-

‘ 5-7-:~»WWn-~~umwnwmmm "mu—174,..."---—»--¢.~.7..~., . ., , »

n a . 5
Minutes of the Univer31ty Senate, May 3, 1976 — cont 407

The federal agencies have suddenly decided that persons on 10—month contracts
like that are no longer eligible for two—ninths compensation in the summer so
the only thing we are attempting to accomplish is to put the month's vacation
beyond the nine—month period so that the employment period is nine months that
employee will be eligible for two—ninths compensation fron1 extramural sources in
the summer.

Following further discussion motion was made to amend the proposal to delete
the following sentence:

". To insure opportunities for vacations, faculty members
employed on this basis shall be limited to two months of employ—
ment in activities funded by the University or its affiliated
corporations during the summer period (May 16 through August 15).

The Senate defeated this amendment.

The Senate then voted to approve the proposal as presented, for recommendation
to the President for presentation to the Board of Trustees.

The Chairman asked for a motion from the floor to waive the ten—day cichlation
in order to consider the next action item on the agenda. The Senate approved such
a motion. Chairman Jewell recongnized Professor Oberst who presented a motion, on
behalf of the Senate Council, to amend the Rules gf_the University Senate, Section
IV, 3.4, to read:



3.4 Concurrent Registration in_Courses Bearing the Same Number ——


A student may not register in a given term for more than one course
bearing the same number except where the course description indicates
the course may be repeated for a specified number of credit hours.

_This proposal had been circulated to the faculty under date of April 27, 1976.

Without debate the Senate approved this motion.

The Chairman asked for a motion from the floor to waive the ten—day cir—
culation in order to consider the next item on the agenda. The Senate approved
Such a motion. The Chairman then recognized Professor Oberst who presented a
motion, on behalf of the Senate Council, to amend the Rules of the University


Senate, Section I, 5.2, first paragraph, as follows. This proposal was a part

of the preceding proposal circulated to the faculty under date of April 27, 1976.
5.2 Election_gf Voting Faculty Members_gf the Board 9: Trustees

As specified in the Governing Regulations, there shall be two
voting faculty members of the Board of Trustees. Faculty members who
may vote in the election of faculty members for the Board of Trustees
shall be those in both the University System and the Community College
System who (1) have an actual or equivalent rank of Assistant Professor
or higher, (2) hold a tenured position or one in which tenure may be
acquired, and (3) are included in the faculty T.I.A.A.—C.R.E.F. retire—
ment program (or eligible for such inclusion after one year of
University service) or other retirement program approved by the Board

of Trustees.

 _..._. :aqumm'sr


Minutes of the University Senate, May 3, 1976 — cont

Faculty members eligible to serve as an elected member of the Board
of Trustees shall be those who meet the voting qualifications and who are I
members of the teaching and research faculty at time of election and service. ‘
Teaching and research faculty are those whose primary assignment is in ‘W
those areas. For purposes of this section, assignment as Department Chair— ‘M
man shall not automatically exclude one who holds such a position from I
eligibility to serve as an elected member of the Board of Trustees. Faculty
members of the Board of Trustees shall be eligible for re—election.

Eligibility under paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall be certified in the
same manner as for elections to the University Senate or the Senate of the I
Community College System.

Following some discussion motion was made to delete the word "automatically" I

from the second paragraph of the proposal. The Senate approved this motion. I


The Senate then approved the motion as presented and amended.



Dr. Jewell reported that the next item for consideration by the Senate was
not on the agenda of the meeting nor had it been to the Senate Council. He re— “flan
ferred the Senators to the one—page document that had been handed to the Senators .IV
as they entered the meeting, a recommendation from the College of Home Economics.



He asked for a motion from the floor to waive the ten—day rule in order to I
consider this proposal. The Senate voted to waive the rule. I

Dr. Leonard Packett, Department of Nutrition and Food Science, College of
Home Economics, moved that the following rule be added to the Rules 9f_thg
University Senate, Section IV, 2.0 Admission Requirements, as an additional ‘
paragraph, on page 5, contingent upon approval of the program by the Undergraduate

and Senate Councils. {

2.19 Admission £9_the College of Home Economics Coordinated Undergraduate
Program_in General Dietetics, Option ngf the Professional Dietetics Program. ’


Admission to the University of Kentucky of transfer students or com—
pletion of the Sophomore year by continuing students does not guarantee za
admission to the Coordinated Undergraduate Program. Admission to the pro— “fl
gram is dependent upon the availability of resources for implementation of I
quality instruction and the number of students admitted will be limited by .
these considerations. Students who have completed the required preprofessional
courses will be admitted on the basis of their cumulative collegiate grade I
point average and other criteria indicating potential for becoming successful [


dietitians (e.g. physical acceptaoility, references and personal interview).

,i‘ Following some discussion the Senate voted to approve this addition to the
‘E Rules 9f_the University Senate, contingent upon approval of the program by the
I Undergraduate and Senate Councils.






The Chairman recognized Dr. Pritam.Sabharwal, the Academic Ombudsman, who
presented the following annual report:


Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate: “a

I want to express my appreciation to all of those with whom I have had I
dealings as an Academic Ombudsman. Even when the relationships were strained, I
everyone involved was cooperative to reach a so—called satisfactory solution. ,
I review this position of Academic Ombudsman as one who is a good listener, and I








_. ”7-»~>~W1mzmon~~hmrrrczcznm'* ., .

Minutes of the University Senate, May 3, 1976 — cont

can influence the parties concerned in trying to reach a fair solution
of the problem

There was a total of about 329 complaints for which I kept records.
There were another 100 students for whom it was necessary to maintain
records. These included advising and minor personal and academic problems.
Also there were students who did not want to have a record of their com—
plaints filed in the office——perhaps afraid of the CIA or FBI. There were
28 cases which were considered non—academic. These included fines, finan~
cial aid, ventilation in the classrooms, smoking, bookstore, Library fines,
Placement Office problems, thus leaving 301 academic cases. This compares
to the 188 contacts that Dr. McCullers made last year as an Academic

First of all, I would like to give a breakdown of the cases with
respect to the various units involved. As usual, Dr. Gallaher's college
is at the top of the list. We had about 147 cases there. We know that
there are too many students there and we expect that kind of problems
coming from the students. Business and Economics had 26 cases; Law had
22; Home Economics had 21; Education had 30; Agriculture had 10; and
Engineering and the Registrar's Office had 5 each. Nursing and Allied
Health had 4; Architecture had 3; Pharmacy had 4. LTI, Dentistry, and
Medicine had 2 each. There was a complaint from ROTC also, and one from
the Honors Program. There were only 16 complaints from graduate students
and that is also expected because mostly thqrare afraid of making any
of these complaints. The majority of the complaints were from the under—
graduate students.

Let me give you an idea of the types of problems an Ombudsman faces.
There are some that are very interesting and I don't know whether I can
repeat those things here. However, I think I can express a few which
are very common. The matter of grades and grading procedures constituted
about 204 cases. These included problems relating to syllabus not given
to the students. (We should do that thing; legally we are supposed to.);
course not corresponding to the syllabus (the syllabus was there but the
course was a little different, sometimes very different); changing of
grades from E to W or I (the student felt that his work and grades
deserved an A or a B instead of a C); there were 84 cases involving dis—
satisfaction with the teacher. What kind of dissatisfaction? The teacher
was either late or did not show up for the class several times; showed no
enthusiasm or interest toward the students or the course; and there
were instances where the teacher insulted a student in front of the whole
class repeatedly; 52 cases in all—~examinations——whether or not it was
legal to change the time or the date of the exam; examinations being too
ambiguous, too messy to read, maybe hand—written, in my language (Punjabi)
perhaps. There were 16 cases of plagiarism and cheating. One of these
was very fascinating to me. A faculty member reported the matter to me
but also said that he would volunteer to put this boy on the right track.
I would like to get this type of help quite often. I accepted his help
and the faculty member concerned counselled the student back on the right
track without any harsh punishments. I definitely have a lot of reSpect
for this type of faculty member. There were nine cases where the students
were dissatiSfied with the quality of the course. They thought it was
gibberish. But that, once again, depends upon who was making the comment.
There were some cases where the teachers announced the names of students


:IEflIle-VFW ' -
,. . , ,














V ._. -*_r.:mA-Imvuash‘lul“?&3_‘.‘.‘§.‘3"‘1--~g——'L‘WAI'.1' « ‘ * » ~~ - . ' -‘ -----


Minutes of the University Senate, May 3, 1976 — cont

while giving grades. And that is, by the way, illegal. All the cases, [
except those pending, have been resolved to the satisfaction of the 1

parties concerned and the good news is that not one of these cases has gone ifilfi‘
to the Appeals Board so far.

The OmbudsmanVS Office has served as a cooling off place for the students. I
The student does not feel pressed and left inhibited and is more confident
that the Ombudsman will at least make his best effort to remedy the situation. {
The office provides an excellent chance for the students and faculty to bring
their grievances and to come to an amiable solution. Somebody might ask,”When
do we have our busiest season?” Well, it is here right now. It seems that
the numerous complaints come before, during, and after the examinations and
the grades are in. f


A majority of the students and some faculty members think that this is [
a full—time job. I must make it clear that officially it is a half—time job
and normally the faculty member is given 50 per cent off from his teaching (
responsibilities. However, this was not the case with me. I was needed ,q‘
in the department and I had full—time teaching and research responsibilities *rifii
in addition to being Ombudsman. The next question is,”Is it really a half— fl
time job?" There are days when the job demands more than full—time; however,
there are times when the new complaints are few and this was a good opportunity
to make contacts with the professors and resolve pending cases. In other words,
this was the busiest, yet the most pleasant year, of my life. \

Now how can we reduce the problems for the Academic Ombudsman next year. I
On the basis of my experience, I recommend nine Commandments instead of the
10 coming from Moses. I would like for you to listen to these carefully ‘
because if you do, I believe we will reduce the problems next year.

I. The Chairman of all departments should remind faculty members that
they give a syllabus to the students during the first week of classes.

2. The syllabus must contain the contents of the course. ‘

3. The course content should be preferably similar to what you plan /yfii

to teach. €~ L
4. The grading system should be explained clearly. The students like }

to know whether the grade A starts at 90 or 100. And some faculty members are

in the habit of using a different system and telling the student, ”Well, we will

see later, decide the cut off line depending upon the curve.” And that curve 1

really suspends the students. So to reduce problems for the Ombudsman, I think I

it would be preferable to use the exact point system. {


5. Please do not apply new rules and regulations to the students who
entered the program under a different set of rules. I think we have rules
and regulations for undergraduates that very clearly say that a student has
an option to pick up the old rules or the new rules but to my knowledge I I
did not see such rules and regulations for the graduate students.

6. Do not encourage students to cheat. I think the faculty shOuld take
more responsibility. I have cases where numerous students were packed in
small rooms and the students are practically breathing on each other. Some—
times the faculty member concerned left the room quite often. Where he went, I
God knows. And today I have had the same kind of example again. The student (

 . -mwy-.-jw _ h-I~-lflmfl£'£1!1hm’"~"‘~f??“-F"~"""’~’w~ » m'mw-r Hwy-r, -.....».. . .


Minutes of the University Seante, May 3, 1976 — cont 4079

‘; called and said,”Dr. Sabharwal, the faculty member was not in the class.
I want to ask some questions and I think he has disappeared."

“EA“, 7. Please do inform the students in advance if you are planning to
/ miss a lecture due to a professional meeting. Ask someone else to put

a note on the door before the class starts if you can't come to the class
because you are sick.

, 8. Listen to the student's problems very carefully and please try
n to resolve by putting yourself in his or her position.


: 9. Encourage mutual trust and put a spark in the life of the students
‘ by use of your experience and genuine interest in your own students. They
{ are our own students. They need us and we need them.


[ I would now like to mention a few words of thanks to those who made my
( job very enjoyable and very successful. I would like to begin with Dr.

‘ McCullers, the Ombudsman for last year, who gave me a few very nice inside
fmih tips; Dr. Paul Sears and the Senate Council Office, especially Cindy, for

K; very helpful set of rules and regulations and who also gave friendly advice
wherever I needed it; Mr. Jack Blanton, Vice President for Business Affairs,
Lty and Ms. Judy Singleton, the Business Affairs Ombudswoman. Perhaps you know
:ds, V that we have an Ombudswoman on this campus, too. Dr. Clapp, the Vice
President for Administration, was always very helpful. Various faculty
members, Chairmen, Deans, and other Vice Presidents with whom I had some
I grievance, were extremely cooperative. A special thanks is due to
‘ President Singletary for his encouragement and for providing excellent
1 facilities for carrying out the job in the best possible manner.

r Finally, I would like to thank you all for giving me this opportunity

‘ to serve the University of Kentucky. I hope that I have been able to

‘ reduce the friction and bridge the gap between the students, the faculty,

V and Administration. As I mentioned previously, this time is a peak season

‘ for my business so I think I had better run back to my office. Thank you
very much.

”gag Chairman Jewell asked the Senators if they wished to address any questions
l to the Chairman of the Senate Committees that had presented annual reports. The

’ reports had been circulated to the faculty under date of April 21, 1976 and
re additional committee reports were handed to the Senators at this meeting and
A7111 l are appended to these minutes. There being no questions, the Chairman declared
3 1 the meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
ink l


Kathryne W. She lburne
Recording Secretary






April 26, 1976

The University Senate will meet in called session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
May 3, 1976, in the Court Room of the Law Building.
Items on the agenda:
(1) Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of April 12, 1976.
(2) Informational EEEEE:
a. Summary of Senate Council activities.
Action items:

a. Recommendation on amendment to Governing Regulations on definition
of academic year (circulated to the faculty under date of April 27, 1976).

b. Proposed amendment to University Senate Rules, Section IV, 3.4,
regarding simultaneous registration in two courses with same number
(circulated to the faculty under date of April 27, 1976).

c. Proposed amendment to University Senate Rules, Section I, 5.2,
concerning eligibility for election of faculty members to the Board of
Trustees (circulated to the faculty under date of April 27, 1976).

a. Report of the Academic Ombudsman.

b. Opportunity for Senators to raise questi