xt73bk16q670 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt73bk16q670/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1988-01-18  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, January 18, 1988 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, January 18, 1988 1988 1988-01-18 2020 true xt73bk16q670 section xt73bk16q670 MINUTES UNIVERSITY SENATE, JANUARY l8, 1988

The University Senate met in a special session on Monday, January l8,
1988, at 3:00 p.m. in Room llS of the College of Nursing/Health Sciences

William E. Lyons, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: David Allgood*, Richard Angelo, Michael A. Baer*,
Charles Barnhart, Raymond F. Betts, David Bingham*, Glenn C. Blomquist*, Tex
Lee Boggs*, Jeffery A. Born, Peter P. Bosomworth, Earl Bowen, Ray M. Bowen,
Carolyn S. Bratt*, Glen Buckner*, Joe Burch, D. Allan Butterfield, Ben Carr,
Edward A. Carter, Michael Cibull, Donald Coleman, M. Ward Crowe*, Frederick
Danner, Marcus Dillon, Richard C. Domek, Jr., J. Burton Douglass*, Nancy S.
Dye*, James Freeman, Daniel L. Fulks*, Richard W. Furst, Thomas C. Gray, Ann
Griesser, Andrew Grimes, Zafar Hasan, Roger W. Hemken*, Freddie Hermann,
Ronald Hoover, Raymond R. Hornback, Jeffrey Hughes, Mehran Jahed, John J.
Just, Richard I. Kermode, Lisa King, Jim Koegel, James M. Kuder*, John Kuegel,
Robert G. Lawson, Gerald Lemons, Arthur Lieber*, William C. Lubawy, Paul
Mandelstam*, Robert Murphy, Michael T. Nietzel, Arthur J. Nonneman, Jose
Oubrerie, Rosanne Palenno, Philip C. Palmgreen*, Alan Perreiah, Antoinette P.
Powell*, Deborah E. Powell*, Robin D. Powell, Madhira (Mike) D. Ram, John A.
Rea, G. Kendell Rice, Thomas C. Robinson, John M. Rogers, David P. Roselle,
Edgar L. Sagan, Donald E. Sands*, Karyll N. Shaw, Steven J. Skinner*, Stephen
Stigers, Louis J. Swift*, Michael G. Tearney*, Cyndi Weaver, James H. Wells,
Charles T. Wethington, David White*, Gene Williams, Jason Williams, Angene
Wilson*, W. Douglas Wilson, and Peter Winograd*.

The Minutes of October l2, l987, were approved as circulated.
The Chair made the following remarks and announcements:

"Let me announce first of all that you might want to
make a change on your calendar. The March Senate meeting
would ordinarily fall on Monday the 14th which starts the
beginning of spring break for the main campus. Because of
that we had to move the March Senate meeting up one week.
We will be meeting on March 7 at 3:00 p.m. in Room ll5 of
the College of Nursing/Health Sciences Building.

The Institutional Finances and Resource Allocation
Committee of the Senate headed by Antoinette Powell will be
starting a Budget Newsletter, and we have gotten the
president's office to agree to help us fund it for one
issue this Spring Semester. We hope that if this works out
and you think it is a useful thing, we can try to put it in
our budget for next year so that three or four issues of
such a newsletter would be forthcoming. This Newsletter
will be for all faculty members not just Senate members.

In addition, Toni Powell's committee is also attempting to
schedule a budget forum. Senators are invited to send
questions or concerns about the budget to the Senate

*Absence explained.


 Council Office so that they can be incorporated into the
plans for the Forum. The date for that Forum will be
announced after we know more about what the legislature is
up to.

Some of you may recall that we have a rule on the
books and have had it for a number of years that mandates
that we have an annual faculty poll and that the faculty
poll committee has sent out a questionnaire to all
faculty. The response to that is quite amazing. I must
say that opening the envelopes and getting them ready for
the committee was, for the most part, very interesting as
well. It is very clear that many of you have concerns
about the budget and they were articulated very vigor-
ously. At any rate, what is going to happen to those open
ending questions is that they will now be used by the
committee to attempt to develop another questionnaire that
will try to focus our attention on some key items and see
what that will be. You will be hearing more about that in
the next couple of weeks.

The Council on Higher Education, despite all of its
announcements about how it was going to change its dates
for considering programs, met last week and approved five
new degree programs for the University of Kentucky. Three
of these programs were revised proposals that have been
before the Council on Higher Education before. One of them
was the Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematical Sciences
and the other two were the Master of Science and the Ph.D.
degree in Biomedical Engineering. All those proposals have
now been approved and are effective immediately according
to the CHE. The two other degree programs that were
approved last week are new ones that we circulated this
year and all of you, I am sure, have had a chance to look
at them. One was the Bachelor's degree in Arts Adminis—
tration and the other one was the Ph.D. in Public
Administration. Both of those degree programs also were
approved and effective immediately by the CHE. On the Arts
Administration I may want to circulate to you a change.

Our original circular said that degree would become
effective Fall l988. The reason we chose that date was
that we didn't think it would be going to the CHE until
after March and it would have been a moot issue for this
academic year. I may ask you to approve changing the
effective date to read--“effective Spring l988."

We have a calendar committee and some of you may
recall that the students asked last year that we do
something about incorporating two ”dead days" into our
calendar for purposes of preparing for final examinations.
You may recall that the Senate requested that Wilbur Frye
set up that committee with the understanding that it would
not become operational until the students submitted
evidence of student interest in the idea. You may have
seen a poll conducted by the Student Government Association



utilizing the survey research center. Those data have
become available and the committee, which is now headed by
Enid Waldhart, will begin deliberations on this matter.

The University Studies Committee has submitted its
plan to the Senate Council for implementing the new
University Studies program in the Fall of l988. I would
hope that the Senate Council which has begun its
deliberations will be able to complete those deliberations
within the next week or two weeks and forward this to you
for your consideration. Most of what will be involved here
we will be able to do by transmittal, especially the
courses that will be certified as meeting the requirements
for the various components of the new University Studies
program. There may be at least one policy change involving
a concept of clustering as an alternative way of dealing
with the cross-disciplinary requirement that we will have
to bring to you, perhaps at the February or March meeting.
That will be one that we will have to do on the floor
because it would involve changing the rules we adopted two
years ago when this proposal was put in place. You will be
hearing more about the University Studies program. I think
you will find it interesting, and I think all of us will
have to understand that there may be things added to this
as we go through time. We should not assume that what we
see in the program now will be the complete catalog of
courses to meet all of our variOus departments forevermore.

At the February Senate meeting, we may come back to
you with the cheating and plagiarism rule changes that were
returned to committee. In addition, we should be dealing
with the honorary degree recommendations.

Last, but not least, let me announce today that the
Rally for the Advocates for Higher Education that we talked
about before has been scheduled. Bob Bell, who was here at

' one of our meetings, has sent a notice to President Roselle
saying that a Rally will be held in the late afternoon on
Tuesday, February 16, 1988, and that it will be held at the
Frankfort Convention Center. I hope that all of you will
put that on your calendar and make every effort to get over
there and encourage your colleagues to get to the Rally.
This is an important legislative session. I think the
timing on this is particularly interesting because that
will be several weeks after the Governor has submitted his
budget message to the Legislature. By then the legislature
will be deep in deliberations on the budget. It is an
appropriate time for the University of Kentucky and other
institutions to put on a show of support for higher

The Chair asked the Chair-elect of the Senate to introduce the agenda item
as a single motion with the understanding that the proposal would be discussed



in a set of clusters and Professor Malcolm Jewell, Chairman of the Rules
Committee, was asked to outline the proposal.

Chairman Lyons recognized Professor Loys Mather, Chair-elect of the Senate
Council. Professor Mather, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved approval of
the proposal to change University Senate Rules, Section 1, Election Rules.
This proposal was circulated to members of the Senate under date of l6
December 1987. '


The Chair noted that the proposal was a recommendation from the Senate
Council and did not require a second. Professor John Rea (Spanish) said that
on page 1, first paragraph, line 5 there was a statement which reads ”...ways
to simplify the various election rules ..." but he felt it was in the spirit
of the tax simplification act. On page 2 he noted that in the second
paragraph, second sentence, the word "each" was used too many times and asked
that the third "each" be deleted. The Chair said that the editorial changes
would be made.

In explanation the Chair said the proposal was focusing on the University
Senate Rules and the Senate, Graduate Council and Undergraduate Council. The
Chair recognized Professor Malcolm Jewell (Political Science). Professor
Jewell said that an explanation was in order because the proposal as
circulated did not include much information. He said the Rules Committee was
asked over a year ago to do two things. One was to simplify the nominating
process, cut down the amount of paperwork, cut down the number of ballots
going back and forth, cut down the amount of work it takes, and the number of
times the faculty members have to ballot. Secondly, the committee wanted to ,
find some way at the same time to involve more directly faculty members in the
process by getting them to participate in the nominating process. The entire
focus of the original proposal was on the nominating process. Along the way,
the Rules Committee had suggested a few small changes to simplify other parts
of the process. The committee is proposing to use a different nominating
process essentially the same nominating process for electing Senators, members
of the Undergraduate Council and electing members for the Graduate Council.

He wanted to take those three together because the process is essentially the
same. He said there would be a little tinkering for the Senate Council and a
major change for nominating members of the Board of Trustees. He said the
Rules Committee was trying to get away from the present system. Members of
the Senate, Graduate Council, and Undergraduate Council are nominated by units
not by the entire faculty. The current procedure is that nominating ballots
are sent out and faculty nominate names, they are returned, and then the top
names are sent out to have another vote. In point of fact, the nominating
ballot gets very little participation. One of the consequences is that in the
smaller colleges or smaller units, there is sometimes a very low turnout. For
example, in one election three names were needed and three people were
nominated and each got two votes. Five or six people got one vote each. If
there had been one less person with two votes, all the names would have been
put on the ballot. That is rather a casual way of conducting an election.
Secondly, the Senate Council feels that there ought to be some thought given
to the nominating process. Therefore, a system is being proposed for all
three where nominations can be made by letter. Because this may not attract
very many names, the Senate Council is particularly asking various component
groups like chairmen of departments, director of undergraduate studies,
directors of graduate studies, depending upon which group is involved, to take
on the responsibility of suggesting names. The votes for the Undergraduate


 Council and the Senate will be submitted at the same time. Professor Jewell
said that he hoped a little thought would be given as to who would be good to
sit on the Undergraduate and Graduate Council. He added that Dean Royster
suggested and the Senate Council has agreed that the Graduate Council ballots
be done by the Graduate School. Dean Royster hopes they can generate more
interest in the Graduate Council by doing it that way. Professor Jewell said
that if the new procedure did not produce the required number of names, two or
three times the number to be voted upon, depending on what election it was,
that a particular body in each college or unit would be responsible for
generating enough names themselves. Every person eligible to participate in
the process is entitled to nominate. The nominating system would be different
than it is now, and Professor Jewell thought it might be harder to get more
names. He said at the present there was a tendency to put someone's name on
the ballot because they had been put on other ballots and other committees.
Professor Jewell asked for questions and comments on the process of nominating
for the Senate, Undergraduate Council and Graduate Council.

Professor Hans Gesund (Engineering) had one problem with the process which
Professor Jewell described. He felt that basically the idea was a good one,
but he felt the secrecy of the ballot had been killed. He added if there was
trouble now getting people nominated through a simple ballot, there would be
more difficulty to get people to write a letter. He felt having chairmen and
directors nominating people was a good idea, but he was worried about the
secrecy of the ballot. He didn't think demanding a letter would increase the
number of nominations from the faculty and that may mean that the entire
Senate would be nominated by administrators and he somewhat objected to that.
He felt the Senate should be representative of the faculty and not of the

Professor Constance Wood (Statistics) wanted to know why the committee did
not propose that the nominating procedure be supplemented by letters from
various groups. Professor Jewell said that the present procedure was to count
the number of names nominated. He did not know how to add the two
procedures. He said any name submitted by letter would be on the ballot.
Chairman Lyons clarified that the proposal was attempting to separate the
nominating process and the election process. The view of the Senate Council
and the committee is one that the process would attempt to generate
sufficient numbers of people so that an election would have some meaning and
secondly that some additional thought be put behind that process so that the
elections could proceed by using secret ballots. Professor Jewell had
difficulty in believing that anyone would be intimidated from nominating

Professor Martin McMahon (Law) wanted to know what would happen if the
open nomination procedure produced more names than twice the number needed for
an election. Professor Jewell said all the names would be on the ballot.
Professor McMahon said “at least" should be added to the last line on page 2.
Chairman Lyons accepted the editorial change, and the sentence would read:

"...number of names remaining on the ballot being at_least
twice the number of vacancies to be filled, including ties."

Professor Rea said having to write a letter might discourage nominations
rather than increase them. He wondered if it would be possible to have that
nomination in the form of the first ballot now. This would not force someone



to write a letter, but it still could be a nominating procedure. Professor
Jewell said that obviously was an option. Professor Gesund wanted to know if
everyone nominated would be on the first ballot because the proposal stated
that "The ballot for the election of senators shall contain twice as many
names as there are persons to be elected." The Chairman said that "at least”
would be inserted before "twice" so that at least twice as many names would be
on the ballot as there are persons to be elected. Professor Gesund told
Professor Jewell he was making life worse for himself if everyone's name that
was nominated appeared on the ballot and would be defeating the entire
purpose. Professor Jewell said the simple fact was that no one knew how
people would react. What he wanted was for individual units to give some
thought to people who would make good members of the groups and go so far as
to ask those people if they would be willing to serve. One of the things that
disturbed Professor Gesund was that a dean might get all the department
chairmen and associate deans together and produce the requisite number of
names from that academic council and produce enough votes for each one on the
nominating ballot so that those people will be elected and the Senate would
become very representative of the deans, associate deans and chairmen or
directors of graduate studies. He did not feel the University Senate ought to
be going in that direction.

Professor McMahon wanted to know if the number of nominees that appeared
on the ballot was changed from precisely twice the number of vacancies to "at
least" then would the person receiving the largest number of votes be elected
to mean that the election could end up like the democratic primaries where
someone with a very small plurality can be selected. Professor Jewell said
that could happen because there is a low turnout on the nominating ballot. He
said that normally on the actual election ballot the returns are good.

Professor JoAnne Rogers (Library and Information Science) could understand
why there was a problem in generating interest in the initial ballot because
it always came as an initial shock. She wanted to know if there could be some
kind of calendar sent to the list of Senate members so that the faculty would
know and anticipate when certain events would be taking place. Perhaps then
the councils could be a bit more prepared. She very much shared the concern
that was expressed about the participation of administrators. She was also
concerned that the proposal stated that each college will determine an
appropriate body, but did not say how the college would determine that body.
She did not want department chairs who are administrators to be making
decisions for the only representative faculty body of the University.

Professor Mary Sue Coleman (Medicine) supported the proposal and said it
might raise the consciousness from the department level to the college level
and the new procedure should be tried. Chairman Lyons said that everyone
should understand the balloting procedures go on and on. He felt the
participation should be enhanced at least at the nominating level. Professor
James Applegate (Communications) felt the strength of the proposal was the
idea that it required faculty members to submit a name, not a long involved
letter. It might actually encourage people to check with others before
nominating someone. He said sometimes people just write in familiar names
which often leads to overloading and having the same names. The point of the
proposal is to encourage departments and individual faculty to think about who
would be good people to serve on the Senate. The Chair pointed out that none
of the proposals changed any of the rules for the allocation of seats among
the units, nor do they change any of the rules about who constitutes faculty
or administrators.



Professor Jesse Neil (Physics and Astronomy) agreed with the objection
which Professor Gesund raised that in the Senate election at least where a
very large number of people might be nominated and then it would be hard to
get a plurality on a single ballot. He said people could be elected to the
Senate with a relatively small number of votes. He found that objectional. He
moved an amendment which states:

"Should there be more than three times as many nominees as there

are vacancies, and should the number of persons receiving a majority
of votes be fewer than the number of vacancies, there shall be a
second ballot containing twice as many names as there are vacancies
to be filled."

Professor Neil said there could be a very long nominating list but only two
ballots. The amendment was seconded.

Professor McMahon asked Professor Neil if the amendment was for more than
three times or three times or more. Professor Neil said it was ”three times
as many nominees as there were vacancies." Professor McMahon said there was a
difference between "three times or more and more than three times.” Chairman
Lyons asked Professor Neil if his motion spoke only to the section on the
Senate. Professor Neil answered in the affirmative.

In further discussion on the amendment Professor Marcus McEllistrem
(Physics and Astronomy) appreciated the concern expressed by Professor Neil
and the others, but he said there were a lot of elections going on at the same
time and to put in a procedure that would increase the number of elections
should be thought about a great deal. He was hesitant to fix a problem by a
process that would make the elections more cumbersome. Professor Gesund
assumed that the third from the last sentence would read "The ballot for the
election of senators shall contain at least twice as many names" would be a
part of the proposal. Professor JeWEll said that would have to be part of the
proposal because no provision had been made for cutting down on the number of
nominees. His concern was that something was being fixed that really was not
broken. He said he would vote for the amendment but vote against the proposal.

There was no further discussion on the amendment which passed with a hand
count of 32 to 17.

Professor Jewell detected more concern about using the new method for the
Senate than for the other groups and felt it might be well to vote separately
on the Senate and if there was not enough support for the Senate, there might
be support for experimenting with it on the Graduate Council.

Professor Rea moved to amend the paragraph on the first page that stated:
"...to nominate as many eligible persons as there are vacancies for the Senate
by a letter." He wanted to add to that a simple form letter for this purpose
to be included and not to require a signature. Chairman Lyons said that
everyone would be sent a list of eligible people. Professor Rea said many
people would not want to take the time to write an entire letter and go
through that formality. Professor McEllistrem said that was contrary to the
spirit of the proposal. The parliamentarian ruled that the amendment might be
antagonistic, but it was germane. There was no further discussion and the
amendment failed in a voice vote. The Chairman said that all editorial
changes should be submitted in writing to the Senate Council office.


 Professor Gesund wanted to know if the letter of nominations had to be
signed. The Chairman said it was a letter and presumably it would be signed.
He said it would also be possible to nominate yourself. Professor Gesund
wanted to know what kind of safeguard was going to be used in the nominating
process against people signing someone else' 5 name to the letter. Professor
Jewell said there was no point in nominating a person more than once because
any person nominated would be on the ballot.

Professor Rogers moved an amendment to state:

"If fewer than twice the persons to be elected from any unit
or sub—unit are nominated and are willing to serve, the Dean
of the College shall call a meeting of the faculty Lf that

unit to nominate the necessary number of persons "

She felt that would make it clear that the faculty would be responsible for
the nominations rather than another group such as department chairs. The
amendment was seconded by Professor Gesund. Professor Mather said the Senate
should keep in mind that the fall back provision of calling on directors or
whoever really does not take place unless the faculty does not do their job.
There was no further discussion and the proposed amendment was defeated in a
hand count of 34 to 20.

Section 2.2.1 of the proposed change in University Senate Rules as amended
passed and reads as follows:



For each academic unit or sub- unit where there is an election to be

held the office of Secretary of the Senate wilTTprepare the l1sts Lf
faculty members eTTgible to vote and those eligible to serve. The
office will send a list LTTthose ETTgTble to be elected to those



eligible persons as there are vacanc1es for the Senate Lya :Tletter.
- In addition, each chairman (or dean) and each departmental_ or college
director of graduate stud1es and director of undergradUate studies
will be urged_ to submit nominations by letter. The Secretary of the

Senate w1 ascertain the willingness to serve of those nominated.
If fewer than twice the persons to be ETEcted from any unit or

sub— unit are nominated and are wTTl1ng to serve, the—Dean of_ the
College shall call a meeting of the facfiTty of that unit to nominate
the necessary number Lf’persons. Each College shall notiTy the
Secretary of the Senate in adVance whether it will use fory that
purpose a Trllege CounciT_'a meeting Lf department chairs, Lr a full
meetTng Lf the College facuTty.


The ballot for the election of senators shall contain at least twice
as many names as there are pETsons to be elected. Each—person must
Tote fbr as many persons as there are Vacancies to be filled. If the
number Lf_ persons nominatEd is Lo more than three t1mes the number-6f
vacanciFs to be filled, the persons receiving the largest number Lf—
votes shalT_bF elected. Should there be more than three times as—
many nom1nees as there are vacanc1es, End’should the number of
persons receivTfig a_majority of votes be fewer than the number of




vacancies, there shall 23.1 second ballot containing twice a§_many
names as there are vacancies tg_be filled.




Professor Jewell proposed the Graduate Council and Undergraduate Council
at the same time and said to keep in mind that the machinery for doing the
Graduate Council will be handled by the Graduate School rather than by the
Secretary of the Senate. Other than that the changes are the same. Professor
Neil asked if one letter would go out for the Senate, Graduate Council and
Undergraduate Council. Professor Jewell said the Graduate Council would be
separate because it was a different election. The proposals on Section 3.3.3
for the Graduate and Undergraduate Councils passed unanimously and read as

3.3.3 Election.

The office of the Graduate Dean will be responsible for
administering the election proceduref_'The Dean's office
will prepare the lists of faculty members eligible to vote
and those eligible to sa?ve. Fer each college or collection
of colleges where there is an electibn to be held, the
paanrs office will send E_li§t of those-Efiiifible to—EE
elected to each person eligiblefig vote, who will-Be_ihvited
to nominate eligible persons for the Graduate Council by_a
letter. In addition, jn_each department (93 college) that
has_a gradfiate program, the chairman (§§_dean) and the
director of graduate studies will each be ur ed to submit a
nomination—bylletter. The GradUate DeafiTs ogfice_sha|l _
check on the willingness of persons to serve and will get a
very brief biographical statement from each person
nominated. If fewer than three persons are nominated and
are willing to serve from any college or collection of
colleges, the-GradUate Dean‘s office shall call a_brTEf
meeting of the directors of graduate study from the unit(s)
for the purpose of nominating additional persons to make a
total of three. _TIn the event that more than one person
were tE‘be elected—from the unit, this group would meet 1:
necessary—to piCk nominees equal to three times the number
tg_be electEd.)










Once the nomination process has been completed, ballots will
be sent out containing the names 2f all thbse nominated.
Each erson must vote for as many candidates as there are
vacanc1es to be filled. ‘Tfie person or persons—receiving the
largest number—g: votes wiTT be eTeCTEd.




3.3.3 Election

The nomination for the membership on the Under raduate
Council shall be carried out by the office of gecretary of

the Senate, atlthe same time,”§hd following—the same
procedure , E§.ifl the nomination of senators, except as



indicated below. In addition to the general announcement,
notices urging nominations shaTT'be sent to eaCh chairman
and director 2: undergraduate studies (butThot each director
of graduate studies). If féWer than three times the number
of ersons to Be elected—from any unit are nominated and are
ifil ing ;9_§arva, the Dean of the College or Colleges
involved shall’call §_meetin§'6f_an aEpropFTate group to
nominate the necessary number E: persons. '—_







Once the nomination Erocess has been completed, ballots will
be sent out containing the names g: all those nominated.
Each person shall vote for as many candidates as there are
vacanc1es to Be filled.__ThE-person or persons—receiving the

largest number—g: votes wTTllbg electEd.







In Section 3.1.2. (a) Senate Council, Professor Jewell said the rule now
provides that the first ballot is essentially the nominating ballot. If
someone gets a majority on the ballot, they could be elected. What the
proposal does is to make clear that the first ballot is a nominating ballot.
Strangely enough, there is no provision requiring that a Senator be willing to
serve on the Senate Council. Professor Jewell said the Senate Council took a
lot of time. Other than that he did not believe there were any substantive
changes although there was a provision for clarifying how vacancies would be
filled. Chairman Lyons called for the vote on Section 3.1.2. (a) Senate
Council election which passed unanimously and reads as follows:


(3) Election--Three (3) faculty members of the Senate
Council shall be elected annually during the fall semester
of the academic year. The election shall be conducted by
mail under the supervision of the Secretary of the Senate.
On the nominating ballot, each Senate faculty member shall
vote for the number to be elected at that election from the

' roster of the eligible faculty members as certified by the
Secretary of the Senate upon the authority of the Rules

The six persons receiving the largest number 2: votes, plus
any ties, shall be placed on the ballot. Not more than
twice the number—5f names from any one college as there are
vacancies for that college (includin ties) shall 23 placed
on the ballot. Prior to plac1ng the names of nominees on
the ballot, their willingness tg serve shalT_bg ascertained
31 the Secretary 9f the Senate.




Each voter must vote for as many persons as there are
vacanETEE‘tB'EE'fTTTedT' Those receiV1ng 3—majority of
votes cast—EhETl Be deemed elected, and successive votes
shall be taken as necessary in the manner outlined above.

(4) Vacancies--A vacancy on the Senate Council shall be
filled by appointment by the chairman of the Council of the



eligible nominee who at the last Council election received
the highest number of votes without being elected. If no
one receiving votes on the ballot is available, the vabafity
shal _g 1 ed by the p