xt73xs5jdh43 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt73xs5jdh43/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1979-10-08  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, October 8, 1979 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 8, 1979 1979 1979-10-08 2020 true xt73xs5jdh43 section xt73xs5jdh43 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, OCTOBER 8, 1979

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, October 9, 1979,
in Room 106 of the Classroom Building.

Joseph Krislov, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Michael Baer*, Charles E. Barnhart, Janis L. Bellack*, John J.
Bernardo, Brack A. Bivins, Jack C. Blanton, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Barbara Bryant,
Joseph T. Burch, Joe B. Buttram*, Bradley Canon*, Michael D. Carpenter*, W. Merle Carter*,
S. K. Chan*, Linda Chen, Donald B. Clapp, D. Kay Clawson*, Frank Colton, Samuel F.
Conti, Emmett R. Costrich, Raymond H. Cox, John Crosby, M. Ward Crowe*, Philip H. Crowley,
Paul Davis, Guy M. Davenport*, George W. Denemark*, David E. Denton*, Philip A. DeSimone*,
Ronald C. Dillehay, Joseph M. Dougherty, Herbert Drennon, Anthony Eardley, W. W. Ecton*,
Lee A. Elioseff*, Kevin Ellis, Jane Emanuel*, Joseph Engelberg, Paul G. Forand, Tom
Francis, Art Gallaher*, Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hasan*, Virgil W. Hays*, Andrew J.
Hiatt*, Raymond R. Hornback, Alfred S. L. Hu, Clyde L. Irwin, Donald W. Ivey*, H. Douglas
Jameson, Wesley H. Jones*, Richard I. Kermode, William B. Lacy*, Gretchen LaGodna*,
James R. Lang, Thomas P. Lewis, William L. Matthews*, Marion E. McKenna*, Dorothy A.
Miller, Philip J. Noffsinger, Elbert W. Ockerman* Clayton Omvig, Doyle E. Peaslee,
Antoinette Powell*, Deborah E. Powell*, Herbert G. Reid*, Paul Roark*, Robert W. Rudd,
Pritam S. Sabharwal, John S. Scarborough, Paul G. Sears, Ronald J. Seymour*, Gary Shenton*,
Timothy W. Sineath, Otis A. Singletary*, John T. Smith, Tim Smith*, Wade C. Smith, Lynn
Spruill*, Earl L. Steele*, Ralph E. Steuer, Marjorie S. Stewart, Joseph V. Swintosky*,
Harold H. Traurig*, David E. Upton*, Relmond VanDaniker, M. Stanley Wall, Marc J. Wallace*,
Alfred D. Winer,

The minutes of the meeting of September 10, 1979, were approved as circulated.

Chairman Krislov recognized Professor Richard Wynn who presented the following
Memorial Resolution on the death of Dr. Susan Anne McFarland.

Susan Anne McFarland, 1946—1979

Dr. Susan Anne McFarland, a good friend of the University and
of the Commonwealth, died in Jackson, Mississippi on May 15, 1979,
after a long struggle with diabetes. She was my colleague and a
close personal friend and it was with great sadness that I prepared
this memorial resolution. Suzanne, as she was known to her friends,
served the University well from 1972 to 1976 as a faculty member
in the Departments of Oral Biology and Pediatrics and as a public
servant in the counseling of diabetics. Because of this disease,
she left us so very early in her career.

Suzanne was born in Jasper, Texas on November 28, 1946, and
lived in Mississippi most of her life. She received a B.S. degree
in biology at the Mississippi State College for Women at Columbus
and went on to graduate work in pharmacology at the University of
Mississippi, where she received her Ph.D. degree in 1972. Her
honors at that time included a National Institutes of Health Pre-
doctoral Fellowship, and a Fellowship in the American Society of
Pharmacology and Therapeutics to study molecular pharmacology.

*Absence explained


 Suzanne had a record of distinguished service to this University
and to the Commonwealth. She joined the Department of Oral Biology
in the College of Dentistry in 1972 to teach dental and dental
hygiene students. She is recognized as one of the originators of
self-instructional learning in the dental college and is remembered
for her talents in teaching. In fact, her students on many occasions
openly acknowledged her special skills and outstanding personal quali—
ties. In terms of scholarship, her writings appeared in such presti—
gious publications as the Archives of International Pharmacodynamics
and Therapeutics, the European Journal of Pharmacology, the Journal
of Dental Education, and Pharmacology and Therapeutics in Dentistry;
her scientific papers were concerned with the effects of cyclic AMP
on gastrointestinal smooth muscle, the development of antagonists to
overdoses of local anesthetics and the characterization of drug pre—
scribing among Kentucky dentists.





In l974 she accepted a joint appointment to the Department of
Pediatrics in the College of Medicine, where she did much of her
work with diabetics. Suzanne had an abiding interest in public ser—
vice and believed that the University should exert itself in attempt—
ing to solve some of the problems of society. Thus, her efforts toward
public education of diabetes reflected well on the University and had
a positive impact on the community. At the University level she
counseled diabetic children and their parents about the problems of
growing up as a diabetic and the emotional and psychological aspects
of this disease; worked with physicians in the diabetic clinic in
the management of the outpatient diabetic; began a series of ”Dinners
For Moms Only” in an effort to counsel parents of juvenile diabetics,
and formed a committee to provide structured educational programs
for hospitalized adulteonset diabetics. At the State level she was
a member of the Executive Committee of the Kentucky Diabetic Associa—
tion; made numerous media appearances educating the public about this
disease; participated in the fund raising for Camp Hendon to provide
a camp for juvenile diabetics; was on the long—range planning com—
mittee for a permanent summer camp for diabetic children and traveled
the far reaches of the Commonwealth speaking for the cause of the
diabetic family. I sincerely believe that her participation in
these programs concerning the problems of diabetes improved the
quality of life and understanding for many of the citizens of Lexing—
ton and the Commonwealth.

Because of ill health, Suzanne left the University and returned
to Jackson, Mississippi in 1976, where she taught part—time at Hinds
Junior College the last few years of her life. She died at the age
of 32 after a 20 year struggle with diabetes and was buried in Bay
Springs, Mississippi on May 17, 1979. Her survivors include her
parents, Mr. and Mrs. Robert F. McFarland, Bay Springs, Mississippi;
two sisters, Mrs. Bobby Jo Wilkerson, Oxford, Mississippi and Mrs.
Anna Hart Hazard, Jackson, Mississippi; and a brother, Burns McFarland,
Bay Springs, Mississippi.

Suzanne was a highly competent pharmacologist, teacher par
excellence, fighter of diabetes and a warm, caring human being. She
had to alter her professional career because of this dread disease
and certainly suffered more than her share of pain and disappointment.



Suzanne, for all you did for the University and our community, we
thank you. We will always remember you with deep affection and
our lives have been enriched by your presence.

The Departments of Oral Biology, College of Dentistry and
Pediatrics, College of Medicine recommend that the University
Senate incorporate this resolution in its official minutes and
forward copies thereof to her family.

(Prepared by Richard L. Wynn, Department of Oral Biology)
Chairman Krislov directed that the Resolution be made a part of these minutes and
that copies be provided to members of the immediate family. The Senators were asked to
stand for a moment of silence in tribute and respect to Dr. Susan Anne McFarland.

Chairman Krislov made the following remarks:

"First, I want to tell you that we have replaced two Senate
Council members who cannot attend meetings because of health prob-
lems. The replacements are Richard Warren and Robert Rudd. Pro—
fessor Ivey has indicated that he will return in January, and he
will resume his seat at that time. Professor Emanuel will be
leaving the Council in December.

Second, the Senate Council elections are being held and I
urge you to cast your ballot so that we have the widest partici—

The third announcement is to recognize Professor Adelstein
in connection with another election.”

Professor Adelstein spoke to the Senate as follows:

”Because an election will be held shortly for a faculty mem—
ber to the Board of Trustees, I wish to announce that having
served two terms, I have decided not to run again. To stop any
rumors, such as that I am not physically well, or that my wife
and mother would not give me permission to run, I wish to explain
my decision. One reason for my withdrawal is that I believe in
the principle of rotation, which we apply to most of our chair-
persons. I think it is wise because usually it is beneficial
to have someone new come in with fresh enthusiasm and ideas.
Also, I believe that the position of trustee is a great honor,
one that should be shared with others. I am not presumptuous
enough to feel that I would be elected again, but I have been
around here since 1958, my name starts with 5, and for better
or for worse, I have been conspicuous. To avoid the danger of
being nominated, I have requested that my name be withdrawn from
the eligibility list.

I want to report briefly on my term as a Board member,
which has been a fine and enlightening experience. Professor
Wilson and I have been treated like full and regular Trustees.
We have been able to make suggestions, to provide information,
to raise questions, and to partake of all the rights, privi—



leges, and responsibilities of members of the Board.

Serving as a Trustee has been a learning experience, making
me keenly aware of what an empire this is with its numerous
divisions and sub-divisions on the Lexington campus and on those
of the Community Colleges, its thousands of employees, and its
current operating budget of about $250 million. Much wiser
about University affairs, I have been converted from being criti—
cal of the Administration to being respectful and appreciative,
particularly of its increasing responsibilities in compiling
voluminous reports to state and federal agencies. In this re—
gard, I have developed special admiration for the President
although I am reluctant to praise publicly someone in a super—
ior position to me. But in my role as trustee, I think that
I should inform you that the Board's chief administrative
officer, President Singletary, is highly respected by all its
members, who have great confidence in his ability and judgment.
He serves the University superbly, especially in his role as
a cogent, eloquent, and persuasive spokesman during his public
and private relationships with alumni, public officials, donors,
citizens of the state, and visiting dignitaries. Most faculty
members do not see him function in this capacity and perhaps
do not know how well he represents us.

Finally, I would like to say to my colleagues here at
the University and in the Community Colleges that I sincerely
appreciate and am grateful for the opportunity I have had dur—
ing these past years, and I thank you all very much for it.”

Dr. Adelstein was given a hand of applause.

The Chairman had two further announcements. One involved the Research Title series.
He said that President Singletary presented the Council with the proposed Administrative
Regulations. The Council had a meeting with the Chairman of the Research Committee and
the Council has sent a response to the President on those proposed changes.

The Second item concerned the approval of the proposals for the Ph.D. program in
Computer Science, Philosophy, and Communications by a Committee of the Council on Higher
Education. Hopefully the Council will approve the programs and they will be implemented

The Chairman recognized Professor William Wagner for a motion from the Senate
Council. Professor Wagner, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended
approval of the proposal to recommend definitions for the terms "Center" and "Graduate
Center” to the Administration for inclusion in the Governing Regulations. This proposal
was circulated to members of the University Senate under date of September 20, 1979.

The Chair recognized Professor Grimes and asked him to answer any questions. The floor
was opened for questions and discussion.

Dean Royster wanted to know about the division in the two paragraphs concerning the
Governing Regulations. Professor Grimes responded that his understanding was that the
paragraph under recommendation 1) beginning ”A Graduate Center" would be included in
the regulation of the University Organization and the second sentence under 2) beginning
”The term” constituted the change. Professor Grimes said that the proposal from the



Senate Council was slightly modified from the proposal that was submitted to the Council
by the Committee on Academic Organization and Structure. The change occurs under
Recommendation 1) in the last sentence. He said he wondered what the logic was in the
change. Professor Bryant said he could explain how the change came about, if

not the logic. The proposal came about because of the lack of a clear definition of
"Center." He said that as he recalled Dean Royster had suggested changing the word
"exceptional" to "some." The rationale for it was that "some” acknowledges the possi—
bility of "exceptions.”

Professor Grimes moved, and it was seconded, an amendment that the first recommenda—
tion, last sentence be changed from:

"Its faculty have primary appointments within a college, or in some
cases within the Center”

Amend to read:

II l

...or in exceptional cases..H

Chairman Krislov asked Professor Grimes to indicate the logic. He responded that
the logic was basically in the notion that a Center is a multidisciplinary interdisci—
plinary unit which is equivalent to a department. He added that it was the belief of
the committee that they did not want to recommend language which would permit primary
appointments of faculty to be within the Center. He said that a Center was equivalent
to a department.

Dean Royster wanted to know if this proposal was what was agreed upon when the
Senate and Board of Trustees approved the concept of the Center. Professor Grimes
said that his guess was that the documents were vague about this issue which led the
committee to try to define what a ”Center" was.

After further discussion the previous question was moved and passed. The adoption
of the amendment failed with a hand count of 65 to 51.

The previous question was moved and passed. The motion to adopt the proposal to
recommend definitions for the terms "Center” and "Graduate Center" to the Administration
passed and reads as follows:


On March 22, 1979 the Senate Committee on Academic Organization and
Structure sent to the Senate Council two proposals for modifying the
Governing Regulations of the University, Part VII, A—l. These recommen—
dations have to do with the definition of the term "center" which has
recently been a source of some confusion among faculty, and particularly
those charged with academic planning. At this date the University Senate
and/or Senate Council has recommended eight centers for establishment:

a) The Fort Knox Center

b) The Appalachian Center

c) The Northern Center

d) The Center for Developmental Change

e) The Graduate Center for Public Administration
f) The Graduate Center for Toxicology

g) The Multidisciplinary Center for Gerontology
h) The Sanders—Brown Research Center


 The Committee on Academic Organization and Structure has examined these
units and, considering them as models, propose that the definition
given below becomes the official definition of "center” to be used here-
after. The Senate Council considered the Committee's proposal, asked
the Graduate Dean to review it, made one minor modification at his
suggestion and voted to transmit it to the Senate with a recommendation
to approve and forward to the Administration for implementation.

The Senate Council makes the two following recommendations:

I) It is recommended that a new paragraph be inserted
as paragraph 5 in Part VII, University Organization,
Section A—l, of the Governing Regulations, defining the
Center. The paragraph should read as follows:

A Graduate Center* is an educational (academic) unit
of an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary nature,
which is equivalent to a department, and is located
administratively in the Graduate School. It is asso—
ciated exclusively with graduate programs and their
attendant courses and research. Its faculty have pri-
mary appointments within a college, or in some cases,
within the Center.

2) In View of the common research focus of four of
the Centers (Appalachian, Center for Developmental
Change, Sanders—Brown Research Center for the Aging,
and the Multidisciplinary Center for Gerontology), it
is recommended that the following statement be added
to the definition of a Research Institute which now
appears in existing Paragraph 5 of Part VII, Univer-
sity Organization, Section A—l.

The term ”Center" may, in some cases, be used as a
synonym for Research Institute

Note: This paragraph will become paragraph 6 after
insertion of the new paragraph described in recommenda—
tion 1.

*See the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Trustees,
July 19, 1977, for the original recommendation to estab-
lish graduate centers at the University of Kentucky.

The Chairman recognized Professor William Wagner for a motion from the Senate
Council. Professor Wagner, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended
approval of the proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section I, 4.1.12——
specifically the charge to the subcommittee on Resource Allocations. This proposed
change had been circulated to members of the University Senate under date of
September 19, 1979. The Chair asked Professor Grimes to answer any questions. The
floor was opened for questions and discussion.


 Professor Grimes said that specifically what the proposal did was to facilitate
acquiring a chairman for the subcommittee on Resource Allocations. There was no
discussion and the motion passed. The proposed change reads as follows:


Last September the Senate approved a proposal made by the Senate
Committee on Academic Organization and Structure to set up a sub-
committee on resource allocations, which would consist of six (6)
persons, including a chairman designated from the membership of
the parent committee and five (5) additional members appointed by
the committee. The only restriction on these five (5) was that they
should be appointed from those eligible to vote in elections to
the Senate. Both the Committee on Academic Organization and
Structure and the Senate Council have had considerable difficulty
this year in finding people to serve as chairman of the sub-
committee. Accordingly the committee itself proposes the follow-
ing rule change as a solution to the problem.

Approved Change: (brackets indicate deletion and additional
sentence is underlined)

That the Senate Council shall [designate a member of the
Committee on Academic Organization and Structure as ]appoint

a Chairman of the subcommittee and that five (5) additional mem-
bers of the subcommittee shall be appointed by the Committee on
Academic Organization and Structure to serve on the subcommittee
for staggered terms of three (3) years. The subcommittee members
should be appointed from those eligible to vote in elections for
membership in the Senate and should not be representative of any
constituency. At least one member of the subcommittee, not
necessarily the Chairman, shall be a member of the Senate
Committee on Academic Organization and Structure.


The Chairman recognized Professor William Wagner for a motion from the Senate
Council. Professor Wagner, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended
approval of the proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section I, 2.2.2 (c)
relative to student senators' terms and vacancies. This proposed change had been
circulated to members of the University Senate under date of September 28, 1979.
The floor was opened for questions and discussion.

Student Senator Yeh said that the problem came about last year when students would
lose interest. They would not be purged from the University Senate until they had
accumulated three (3) unexcused absences. Therefore, it would be three months before
that Senator could be replaced. The previous question was moved and passed. The motion
passed unanimously and reads as follows:


The proposal for a change in the Senate Rules was presented by the Student
Government and has received the endorsement of the Student Senate. ‘


 Proposal: (add underlined portion)

I, 2.2.2 (c) Termg: Vacancies —— As specified in the Governing Regula—
tions. each vlected student member shall serve for a term
of one year and shall be eligible for reelection as long
as he or she remains a full—time undergraduate, graduate,
or professional student in the University System. If a
student should at any time become ineligible to serve
(e.g., by relinquishing his or her positon as a full-time
student, being placed on academic probation or violating
the Senate attendance regulations), the administrative
head of the group represented shall declare a vacancy and
designate that member from the eligible student body who
at the last election received the next highest vote to
serve for the duration of the elected student member's
ineligibility. The secretary of the Senate shall main—
tain attendance records and shall notify the administra-
tive head of the college represented when the repre—
sentative of that college has been absent without explana—
tion from three meetings of the Senate during the
academic year. A student member shall become ineligible
to serve on purgation from the Student Senate .....


Note: The proposed addition will be forwarded to the Rules Committee
for codification. Implementation Date: Spring, 1980.

The Chairman recognized Professor William Wagner for a motion from the Senate

Council. Professor Wagner, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended
approval of the proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section VI, 1.1 and 1.2
relative to informing students of course content and criteria. This proposed change

had been circulated to members of the University Senate under date of September 27, 1979.
The floor was opened for questions and discussion.

The Chair recognized the Ombudsman, Professor Jean Pival. Professor Pival made
the following remarks:

"As the current occupant of the Ombudsman's Office, I join my
predecessors in supporting the move to amend the rules to inform
students in writing about the criteria for evaluation. I think
two advantages to this amendment for you as teachers and the stu—
dents is that under the present withdrawal system students can
decide early in the course to drop. Secondly, with new students
coming in and out during the week of add-drop and with the
present Senate Rule requiring that the course content be given
to the students on either the first or second day of the course,
it's very easy to forget to inform a student who comes in on the
third day.

Another advantage is that if a student complains about a
grade and has a written document about course content and criteria
that complaint will usually stop at the Ombudsman Office. ”

The Chair added that the Council considered the question of some sort of exception
or modification for advanced classes. The Council felt that the problem had never come


 up before and referred the question to the Academic Standards Committee to investigate
if any modification should be made for advanced courses.

Professor Just said that he could argue strenuously against adopting the motion
until all courses had been looked at to see what the implications were. He said he was
not arguing against the proposal for lower division courses. He said he gave handouts
himself. He warned the faculty about taking away their own academic freedom. Professor
Lienhard said that at this point he supported such a proposal but Professor Just's call
for exceptions was the reason the proposal went back to the Senate Council. He felt
the proposal should have exceptions. Professor Engelberg asked Professor Pival how
many complaints the Ombudsman's Office had last year. Mrs. Pival said there were 100 to
150 complaints. Professor Engelburg said that with 100 complaints per year it meant that
for every 2,000 encounters between student and course there was one complaint for the
Ombudsman's Office. He said there might be a problem in that area but putting pieces of
paper out every year could not be the most efficient way to solve the problem. Professor
Schwert said that if a professor spent thirty seconds with each of the students explaining
the grading system he would have invested a large amount of time. Student Senator Yeh
said that the students the Ombudsman's Office saw represented only a fraction of the
student body that had complaints. He said that students would like to know what the pro—
fessors used to calculate grades such as midterm grades, exams, term papers or classroom
participation. Professor Bostrom said that he was in agreement with the students that the
type and amount of work should be specified, but the proposal spoke of standards and
criteria. Professor Pival said that the whole business of standards and criteria was not
the issue, but it was the amendment brought to the floor at the last meeting and this
meeting. She added that the rule being amended had been on the books for at least eight
years and being concerned about the meaning of standards and criteria was avoiding the

The Chairman said that the English professors on the Council had assured them
that ”criteria” was a better word than "standards." Professor Just pointed out that
everyone was free to put the information about course content in writing. He also
pointed out that it would save time in certain courses, but that the syllabus was
also a legal document. Professor Bryant said there had to be a kind of unwritten
contract of good faith and it seemed to him a written contract across the board would
have a legitimate effect on what the University was supposed to do. Student Senator
Metcalf moved, and the motion was seconded, to refer the proposal to an appropriate
committee for further discussion. The Chairman defended the Senate Council by saying
that the issue of graduate courses had not arisen before. The motion was made in the
Council to exclude them but not seconded. The Council felt that the absence of problems
suggested there were no serious problems. He said that it appeared from the discussion
there was a great deal more coming to the surface. He said he felt the proper com-
mittee would be the Academic Standards Committee.

The motion to send the proposal to the Academic Standards Committee passed with a
hand count of 80 to 41.

The Chairman recognized Professor William Wagner for a motion from the Senate
Council. Professor Wagner, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommnded
approval of the proposed change in University Senate Rules, V, 1.8.1, the withdrawal
rule. This proposed change had been circulated to members of the University Senate
under date of September 28, 1979. The floor was opened for questions and discussion.


 Student Senator Breen said that in January, 1980, the withdrawal period would be
for one week. He said that the students felt there were disadvantages to having only
one week. One was advising, adequate time to make changes to schedules, several W's on
a record would put students at a disadvantage in the job market, graduate schools, and
scholarships. He said that the students felt a three—week period would give them
adequate time to arrange and evaluate his or her academic schedule. Professor Gesund
said that we have a problem of oversubscribed classes. If students dropped the first
week, then other students could be accommodated for those classes. He added that he
felt the transcript should reflect the truth of a student's academic career.

Professor Reedy said that he felt the students' suggestion was indeed a very rea—
sonable one, and the demonstration of their good judgment should receive the approval
of the Senate, and he urged his colleagues to vote approval of the policy. Professor
Just said that if the withdrawal policy went to three weeks a number of students would
be unable to get into certain classes.

Professor Lienhard said that for many years the faculty Senators had voted their
conscience on issues and he could not remember when student Senators were divided. He
said that the students were representing some sort of constituency. He added that he
knew issues had two sides and when a group was uniformly for something he knew that an
opposing View was not being represented.

Dr. Langston said that students not withdrawing from classes the first week had
little to do with whether or not they were going to get a "W" but had more to do with
the long lines and the fact that the administration cannot devise a procedure that
makes it convenient for a student to withdraw. Professor Gesund said that he could not
see where four or five W's on a transcript was punishment, and he felt the transcript
should reflect accurately a student's true record.

The motion in favor of the proposal to have three weeks after the beginning of
classes to withdraw passed with a hand count of 57 to 32. The proposed change in
University Senate Rules, V,l.8.l reads as follows:

Approved Change:

V, l.8.l Students shall have three weeks after the beginning of
classes to withdraw without receiving a mark on their

Note: The proposed change will be forwarded to the Rules Committee
for codification. Implementation Date: Spring, 1980.

With the above change the Withdrawal Rule now reads:

V, 1.8.1 Students who miss the first two class periods of a
course without notifying the department of their in—
tention to attend may be reported by the Department
to the Dean who shall drop the student from the course
and notify the Registrar that the student has been re-
removed from the class roll. (Previously codified by the
Rules Committee to be included as part of the Withdrawal

Any student may withdraw from any class before the
midpoint of the term. In order to withdraw, the


 student must submit a completed withdrawal

form to

his or her dean. The dean shall report the withdrawal

to the Registrar.

Students shall have three weeks after the beginning of
classes to withdraw without receiving a mark on their


During the remainder of the first half of the course
the withdrawing student must receive a mark of a "W."

A student may withdraw from a class during
half of the term upon approval by the dean
student's college of a petition certifying
academic reasons including but not limited

I. Illness or injury of the student;

11. Serious personal or family problems;
III. Serious financial difficulties.

If such a petition is approved by the dean

student's college, the student is assigned
of llw.'l

the latter
of the
urgent non-

of the
a grade

Note: The proposal includes changing the definition of "W" from "withdrew
passing" to "withdrew." This will be codified formally by the Rules

Committee before implementation in January 1980.

Motion was made to adjourn at 4:45 p.m.

Martha M. Ferguson
Recording Secretary





September 27, 1979


Members, University Senate (L '3

University Senate Council

AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday,
October 08, 1979. Proposed change in University Senate

“5 6qu Rules, VI, 1.1 and 1.2.



«L I

' ' \l I, L"
I (U Full" kaackground:
L k, V The attached proposal for a change in the Senate Rules was referred to
J , {tithe Senate Rules Committ