xt74j09w3t2h https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt74j09w3t2h/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1972-04-17 minutes 2004ua061 English Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 17, 1972 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 17, 1972 1972 1972-04-17 2020 true xt74j09w3t2h section xt74j09w3t2h

3334 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL 17, 1972

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
April 17, 1972, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Flickinger
presided. Members absent: Staley F. Adams*, Arnold D. Albright, Lawrence A.
Allen*, Richard L. Anderson*, Ronald Atwood*, Charles E. Barnhart, Harmon C.
Bickley, Robert H. Biggerstaff*, Wesley J. Birge*, O. E. Bissmeyer*,
Harry Bohannan*, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Garnett L. Bradford*, Eugene B. Bradley*,
Betty J. Brannan*, Mary R. Brown*, Lowell P. Bush*, Ralph S. Carpenter*,
S. K. Chan*, Richard A. Chapman, Lewis W. Cochran, Glenn B. Collins*, Raymond H.
Cox, Glenwood L. Creech, Dan M. Daffron*, George W. Denemark*, Stephen Diachun,
Juanita Fleming*, Lawrence Forgy, Jr., Donald T. Frazier*, James E. Funk,
George H. Gadbois, Eugene B. Gallagher*, Art Gallaher, Jr.*, John G. Gattozzi,
Richard E. Gift*, Charles P. Graves, Thomas C. Gray, Jack B. Hall, Joseph
Hamburg, Jesse G. Harris*, Virgil W. Hays, James W. Herron*, Dallas M. High,
Donald L. Hochstrasser*, John W. Hutchinson, Raymon D. Johnson, Joseph R. Jones*,
Don Kirkendall*, Aimo J. Kiviniemi*, Bruce E. Langlois, Robert G. Lawson,
Donald L. Madden*, Roger M. McCoy*, William C. McCrary*, Ernest P. McCutcheon,
Theodore H. Mueller*, Franklin W. Nooe*, Elbert W. Ockerman*, James R. Ogletree*,
Bobby C. Pass*, Nancy J. Patton*, Nicholas J. Pisacano, Leonard A. Ravitz*,
Herbert G. Reid, Frank J. Rizzo*, Virginia Rogers*, Gerald I. Roth*, Sheldon
Rovin, Paul Sears*, Donald S. Shannon, Albert R. Sharp*, Otis A. Singletary*,
Raymond A. Smith*, John B. Stephenson, Thomas B. Stroup, Dennis D. Stuckey*,
Joseph V. Swintosky*, Norman L. Taylor, Timothy H. Taylor*, S. Sidney Ulmer*,
John A. Via*, M. Stanley Wall, Charles A. Walton, David R. Wekstein*, James H.
Wells, Harry E. Wheeler*, William R. Willard, Paul K. Whitaker, Constance P.
Wilson*, Ernest F. Witte*, A. Wayne Wonderley*, Kenneth R. Wright*,
Fred Zechman, Leon Zolondek*, and Robert G. Zumwinkle.

The minutes of the meeting of March 13, 1972 were approved as circulated.

The Chairman reported that the action ballot taken to establish a
Graduate Residence Center on an experimental basis for Teacher Corps Cycle
VII in Louisville for a two—year period had been approved, the vote being
89 for and nine against; that the proposal would be transmitted to the
President for recommendation to the Board of Trustees. He reported that
there had been some questions raised in connection with the synopsis and
he called on Dean Dennen to respond to those questions.

Dean Dennen reported that one question dealt with the fee being asked of
anyone using the Center; that it was purely an administrative fee of $15

in addition to the regular fees charged. He reported that the second question
dealt with the responsibilities, rights and prerogatives of the Residence
Center Council; that the Council would be represented by faculty designated

by the appropriate deans; that the Council would have the same rights that

are appropriate to faculty to advise and approve individual student programs;
that approval of courses and instructors would be done by the normal recom—
mendation route to the appropriate University Councils.

The proposal as approved for recommendation to the President and Board of
Trustees reads as follows:

It is proposed that an initial Residence Center arrangement
be implemented in Louisville, Kentucky, for members of the Teachers

Corps, enrolled as graduate students at the University of Kentucky
and at the University of Louisville.

*Absence explained

A I

l
E
a
I
{
{
l
I
l
(
(
J

i.
I

, 1
[/7 (\‘SN/

5
‘

Minutes of the University Senate, April 17, 1972 — cont

Two—year Teacher Corps programs at both universities are
funded by the U.S. Office of Education and lead successful
corpsmen to one of the master's level degrees conferred by the
two universities (M.Ed., M.A., M.A.T.). These programs at both
universities, are committed to the training of teachers specifically
for inner—city schools. Urban Louisville, of course, provides a
unique laboratory for this training in Kentucky. With the benefit
of a Residence Center arrangement, faculty and students can expand
their existing cooperative efforts to make this an effective learning
experience.

Duration

The Teacher Corps arrangement shall be for an initial period of
two years——Summer, 1972, through Spring semester, 1974. After a
review and evaluation of the experience, the duration of the
arrangement may be extended by action of both Boards of Trustees.

Over the two—year period, a student may take up to, but no more
than, twelve semester hours applicable to the Master's degree through
the Center.

Administration

A Residence Center Council, as described in the general proposal,
shall be formed and empowered to administer the initial two—year pro—
gram for Teacher Corps. The Council will be responsible to the two
graduate school deans and will report through the two deans of
education. The responsibilities of the Council will include:

1. Organization of the Center's internal operation.
2. Approval of individual programs.
3. Approval of courses and instructors. Criteria would be

those in effect regarding regular campus offerings of the
two universities.

4. Course scheduling and classroom arrangements.

5. Coordination to avoid duplication of offerings through
graduate extension courses offered by each institution
near the other's campus.

Information on Center and Program:
Residence Center Fee

A Residence Center fee shall be charged each Teacher Corps
member for each semester the member enrolls in courses through
the Center. These funds shall be paid to the host institution
to defray a portion of the costs for student services such as
library resources, health services, recreation facilities, etc.
The suggested fee is $15.00 per student per semester.

Registration

Teacher Corps students will register through their own
degree—granting university under the regular tuition or special—

.
. l
i
i
i

3336 Minutes of the University Senate — April 17, 1972 — cont

program financial arrangements which prevail for their course work in
residence on that campus.

Faculty

The ”faculty exchange" bookkeeping system_for recording
instructional services provided by each university shall be im—
plemented as described in the general proposal. However, every effort
will be made during this two-year period, to share the instructional
load equally. Remuneration for teaching could then remain the
responsibility of each faculty member's home institution.

Payment for faculty services is appropriate expenditure of
Teacher Corps restricted funds at both universities. Should the
faculty load for the two—year period be unbalanced in favor of one
university, payment for the difference would be made to the other
university from Teacher Corps funds. Payment would be on an actual
cost basis, at the rate prevailing at the institution providing the
extra faculty service.

Requirements for Admission to the Program:
Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degree with a minimum of
24 hours in one of the following general areas:
English and Humanities (may include six hours of philosophy)
Social Science (history, political science, sociology, social
work, anthropology, geography, economics, social psychology)
Mathematics and Natural Science (mathematics, chemistry, physics,
geology, zoology, biology, botany)
Music
Ag
If the applicant does not have the above he may qualify with
the following:

12 hours —— communications and humanities
12 hours —— mathematics and natural science
18 hours —— social science

12 hours —— selected from psychology, philosophy, English, speech,
and dramatics, foreign languages, mathematics, music
or art.

Chairman Flickinger reported that the College of Arts and Sciences had
accepted the contingencies which were placed on its degree programs by the
University Senate; that the new degree, Bachelor of General Studies, would be
forwarded to the President for final action by the Board of Trustees; and that
the new requirements for the Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science degrees
would become effective for students first entering the College in the 1972 Fall

Semester. The letter of acceptance from the College of Arts and Sciences which
contains effective implementation dates follows:

(
II
I

Minutes of the University Senate, April 17, 1972 — cont

April 13, 1972

avg” Dr. W. Garrett Flickinger, Chairman
,ka, University Senate Council
10 Administration Building

Dear Dr. Flickinger:

placed on its degree programs by the University Senate. I assume
this means the new requirements for the Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor
of Science become effective for students who first enter the College
in the fall of 1972 and that the Bachelor of General Studies program
will be forwarded to the Vice President for Academic Affairs for

( The Arts and Sciences faculty has accepted the contingencies
[ presentation to the Board of Trustees. I

A The faculty of the College recommends that Bachelor of General
Studies students be allowed to count work taken in the 1972 summer
session toward the 30 credits they must complete after entry into
the program. Since this particular rule is part of the College's
degree requirement I assume that the Dean's office may permit this 1
practice without forwarding each request to the Senate Council. '

I wish to extend my personal thanks to you and the Senate ' I
Council for the cooperation and consideration provided to the ‘T
College over the last few months.

(signed) W. C. Royster
W. C. Royster

Dr. John Scarborough, the Academic Ombudsman, made the following

r Sincerely yours,
(

[ report to the Senate:

' VF? The following is labeled an "Ombudsman's Report," an indication

of just what went on in the Ombudsman's office for the academic
I year 1971—1972. Of course the academic year is in progress, and
( additional problems could alter the general pattern I will cast
below. I think, however, that cases and problems which students
I and professors have brought to the Ombudsman are more or less in—
( dicative, and can be used as illustrations in a report.

I I was quite hesitant last July in accepting the post (I still

l would be) realizing that becoming Ombudsman would test one of

my personal ideals at its fullest: flexibility. Anyone who has
the idea — be he student, faculty, or administration — that the

; Ombudsman's position is defined within the bureaucratic structure
and thus is somehow within a set of regulations that one can

peer into a catalogue to understand, has little concept of what
an Ombudsman is supposed to do——at least as I have viewed it. In
the first place, the OmbudSman is neither a student advocate nor '
faculty spokesman nor an administration mouthpiece. The office %$
exists outside the normal bureaucratic lines, and functions by ll}
l its own intent which is utterly simple (and very hard to achieve): v3

to settle disputes through informal negotiations. Secondly, the

Minutes of the University Senate, April 17, 1972 ~ cont

Ombudsman must Operate as if he can gain facts necessary for nego—
tiation, and he must be willing to cross over that thin but effec—

tive barrier between student and professor or administrator which makes
them both less than human beings on first assumption. Third, once

the actual problem is defined, then the Ombudsman should exercise

his influence to get direct talking begun, and ideally step out of the
picture completely. Such have been the methods I have devised and
followed this last year with the varying problems that have come

into my office in Kastle Hall.

I took part in eighty—four actual cases, cases that required action
from my office. In addition there were about 120 problems that
appeared which I was able either by offering advice or proper
reference to "solve" without further action. Such cases never were
recorded but were in the nature of advising or psychiatric counseling,
suggesting once again the miserable state of UK's student advising
system. Many students asked questions any faculty member could
answer, and most students asking me such questions quickly indicated
that they had rarely, if ever, consulted with advisors. Signature—
forging is so common as to excite no comment from either students or
faculty. As far as the other section of the "unrecorded" problems

is concerned, many students (and an occasional faculty member) felt
the need to talk to somebody about a problem that did not fit into one
of the neat categories within the UK bureaucracy. So we talked. A lot.
Crying towel, security blanket, friend, counselor, all could be used
for the Ombudsman at given times.

Of the 84 cases requiring action, types of complaints were as follows:
dissatisfaction with grade received (22), withdrawal—passing difficul—
ties with professor (9), dissatisfaction with exam methods or compass
(8), plagiarism (3), cheating on exam (6) with one grade book altera—
tion under this class (1), advisor callousness (l), dissatisfaction
with teacher attitude and/or course (12), general admissions problems
(5), student caught in departmental politics (2), miscellaneous (15).
Complaints outside academics proper which gained my attention were
several problems relating to cafeteria services, residence halls and
thier rules, and the Student Union. The complaints were fairly even
in their spread over the University: six appeared against the

College of Education, two from Home Economics, three from Library Science,

two from the Medical School, three from Nursing, two from the Law
School, two from the College of Business and Economics, two from
Architecture, and various departments in Arts and Sciences as follows:
anthropology one, art two, biological sciences (biology four, botany
one, microbiology one, zoology two), chemistry five, computer science
one, English four, French one, geography four, geology two, history
seven, mathematics two, music five, physics seven, political science
two, psychology one, Slavic and Orinetal languages one, sociology

one, and speech four. The heaviest complaint months were October and
December: perhaps related to humidity or lunar phases.

The numbers above have no real meaning. All they do is to show that
most departments have significant complaints against them, but, on

the other hand, I was quite disgruntled to find that student accusers
often indulged in character—assassination rather than in specific com-

c'ﬁy..— _ 4—

" .“ 4‘

Minutes of the University Senate, April 17, 1972 — cont

plaints. Or worse, some students attempted blatant wool—pulling,

and their complaints quickly evaporated when I said ”I will call
Professor Schmaltz and get his side." Apparently many students regard
the Ombudsman as some kind of legal advocate for them, and from some
faculty responses, it has become clear that most faculty members choose
to believe the same.

I was gratified by faculty cooperation in all cases that required
examination or comparison of records, when student complaints proved
valid. One basic lesson emerged from all cases: talking was possible
between two parties only when threats and counterthreats were removed.
Most students began their gripes with an attack on a given professor's
integrity or character, and my first task was to point out that once a
professor became defensive under an attack of this kind, no satisfaction
was possible. The student most generally had to think of the professor
as having a different opinion rather than attacking his character by

a bad grade, etc. It initially surprised me to learn—how many students
think of themselves under attack when a bad grade is issued to them,
and how few of them have bothered to look at the facts: test scores
(and their background), actual involvement with subject matter in a
course. Too many students refuse to give courses fair effort or time,
and many students had to be told flatly that their choice of over—
involvement with fraternity or sorority affairs (or other affairs)

and the like had much more to do with poor course performance than

did how a given professor taught or how a professor approached his
material. Yet taken as a whole, student complaints and my hopefully
tactful inquiries, coupled with open exchange with various faculty,
revealed a numbing indifference to student problems in_the classroom,
as well as a disturbing frequency of incompetence in subject matter.

It seems many faculty insist on using outdated materials complemented
by a defensive arrogance that stifles any of the so—called learning
experiences in their classes. Students were correct in raising
questions of a professor's involvement in his discipline (the most
important function any academic has) when he (1) refuses to tolerate
differences of opinion voiced by students, (2) refuses to answer
questions, (3) meets his classes irregularly without due notice to the
students, and (4) fails either to suggest further materials for student
inquiry upon request, or to indicate with honesty points of ignorance.

On the other hand, many students are expert liars, callous in their own
way, with a coldness that (again) initially surprised me. I found that
the collective sense of ethic among the student body is minimal,

either in terms of their own conduct or in matters which might have
something to do with classroom effort. Prevalent attitudes are summed
by the student who came to me and declared "I'm here to do as little

as I can and get out‘. It is little wonder that there is a basic
problem in what everyone seems to have labeled 'communication.‘

Two kinds of problems I intentionally have left out of the classifica—
tions above, either from the numerical totals or from the ”academic"
category. These two constituted the greatest amount of ’business’

for the Office of Ombudsman, in the sense that they were the most

common complaints from all sectors of the University — students, faculty
and administration. The first should come as no surprise to anyone:
parking. The second also seems to be on everyone's lips, forming
churlish comments whenever we might have to get from one place in the

3340 Minutes of the University Senate, April 17, 1972 — cont

Office Tower to anyplace else on campus: the elevators, both in the
Office Tower and in the Classroom Building and a few grumbles trickled
in about elevators in the Library, Medical Center, dorms, and one

even from the Student Center. It seems little can be done about this
kind of physical facility, planned for a given use, and used far more
than its farsighted designers could possibly envision (the same matter
that boggles us all as we cramp ourselves on sweeping interstates
which were supposed to be adequate twenty years from now), and time
spent on the elevator—hassle is without productive result, nor can

it be except for suggestions the Ombudsman has passed along for repro—
gramming the things. As for the first category, that of parking,
something gap be done. Even though my office was continually frus—
trated by bureaucratic buck—passing when complaints were tendered by
the three academic segments of the University, I think pressure should
come (in this case) from appropriate administration offices in blunt
language that says: fix it. And such complaints come from students
on up. The specifics? Visitors parking where they aren't supposed to
(meaning everywhere), maintenance staff stuffing A and B spaces with
their omnipresent blue vehicles, an ever—increasing allocation of
space for handicapped drivers and motorcycles (a connection?) within

a context that (according to figures publicly released by the Traffic
Office) sports three times as many parking permits as there are spaces.
So we have hunting licenses, which to be sure are far less expensive
than those offered by Big Ten Universities (Illinois, e.g., charges ——
or did —— $65/semester for a space, but guaranteed), and which are
being abused. Some of you will ask why the Ombudsman got so many of
these kinds of complaints. There seems to be only one real answer to
that: the office functioned where frustration was great on the part
of large numbers of individuals, and I might hope that this public

‘ airing of this ever present matter (leading to reflections on morale

{5 at UK) can at the very least result in some pressure for reform, for

”' some other system for parking since the present one engenders so much
bitterness. It would seem the Ombudsman could devote his time to
other problems with greater hope of success, but these two problems
were the kinds that appeared in my office with regularity, sometimes
running at least one per day. That's a great many complaints.

I should add that I have not become cynical about either side. Most
of the time I found a warm cooperation from faculty who wanted only

to make sure students received a fair deal, and, most students were
willing to listen to another side under a kind of pressure from my
office. Likewise most faculty were willing to entertain opposing
interpretations from their own, and that would be the point we could
begin negotiations. I have learned much from the year as Ombudsman,
much that confirms many of the things my father (who was a college
president for 19 years) observed through the years, and much that it
taught me about myself and my own potential of flexible actions that
could be separated from given stereotypes. I also should state that

E the Ombudsman must be a person who is willing to make judgments on his
i-l own, without regard to what might be thought by the collective adminis—
i tration or faculty or student body.

Dr. Scarborough was given an ovation following his report. In answer to
a question asked of Dr. Scarborough he stated that of the 84 cases requiring

action by his office, he would say that about 65 were resolved to the
satisfaction of both parties.

-.—. A,

.:-

l
l
I
1
l
l
l
l

n
9

'4
|

“I
1.,
l

Minutes of the University Senate, April 17, 1972 — cont 3341

Dr. Frank Buck, Chairman of the Senate Advisory Committee on Student

Affairs, reported on the status of the various college SACs. He stated that

the Committee had been well pleased with SAC during the year in which these
Councils had been in operation. He reported that the Committee had had reports
from the 16 colleges; that of these, 14 do have SACs and two are working toward
that goal; he stated that each College is required to submit a Statement of Form
and areas of responsibility to the Student Advisory Committee on Student Affairs
for its approval; and that the Committee had received the required reports from
10 of the 16 Colleges. The Chairman of the Senate Council suggested that within
another year all 16 should have furnished the required reports to the Committee.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Howell Hopson, Secretary, presented a
motion that the Senate approve the following changes in the Rules 9f_the
University Senate. These proposals had been circulated to the faculty, under
date of March 30, 1972.

that in Section I., B. 2., Meetings, paragraph 4, the word "faculty” in the
second sentence be changed to "Senate" and that an additional sentence be
added so that the paragraph will read:

”The Senate Council or a sub—committee established by it
shall prepare agenda for regular Senate meetings. These agenda
plus all recommendations for Senate action shall be circulated
to all members of the University Senate and to administrative
offices that are concerned with academic affairs at least ten
(10) days prior to Senate meetings. Simultaneously, a condensed
statement of each agenda item shall be circulated via a campus
mechanism (e.g. student newspaper). For special meetings, where
the ten—day circulation period is impractical, it shall be waived."

that in Section I, B. 4., Functions 9f_the Officers of the Senate, sub—
paragraph (1) Secretary, a. that the word "University" be added preceding
the word "Senate” in the third line; that the phrase ”to all other members
of the University faculty" be deleted from that sentence; and that an
additional sentence be added to the end of that paragraph so that the

paragraph will read:

(1) Secretary

a. To distribute notices of regular Senate meetings at least
ten (10) days prior to meetings with agenda and recommendations.
for Senate action to the members of the University Senate and

to administrative offices that are concerned with academic
affairs, and of special meetings as directed. Simultaneously,

a condensed statement of each agenda item shall be circulated
via a campus mechanism (e.g. student newspaper).

and that b. in that same sub—paragraph (1) be changed to read:

b. To keep minutes of the Senate meetings and to circulate
these to all members of the University Senate and faculty and
to administrative offices that are concerned with academic

affairs."

He reported that these recommended changes had the approval of the Rules
Committee.

3342 Minutes of the University Senate, April 17, 1972 - cont

The Senate approved the proposed changes in the Rules 9f_the University
Senate as presented.

On behalf of the Senate Council Mr. Hopson presented a motion that
the Senate approve the following changes in the Rules, which were also
contained in the circulation to the faculty dated March 30, 1972:

that in Section V., B. The Academic Ombudsman: paragraph 1. f.

Records and Reports, the second sentence be deleted and the following
new sentences be substituted so that the first paragraph of f. would
read:

f. Records and_Reports —— The Academic Ombudsman shall retain

a record of all cases which he accepts. He shall review all files
at the end of his term of office and he should destroy any file of
a case which has been resolved which is two years of age or older.
If not destroyed, then all names should be removed. The decision
not to destroy a file ought to be based on criteria such as
resolution which might serve as a precedent for similar such

cases in the future. All unresolved cases which are more than

one year old and which were never forwarded to the Appeals Board
shall be destroyed. He shall present annually a report of his
activities to the University Senate, the Student Government and the
President of the University and may offer recommendations for
changes in rules, practices or procedures to the end of achieving
more harmonious and effective governance of student academic affairs.

The Chairman announced that this motion also had the approval of the Rules
Committee.

Following brief discussion the Senate approved the proposed change in the
Rules, as presented.

The Senate approved a waiver of the Rules in order to consider the
next item on the agenda, that of proposed Rules changes circulated to the

faculty under date of April 5, 1972, and which had not been received at
least 10 days before this meeting.

On behalf of the Senate Council Mr. Hopson presented a motion that an
additional paragraph 6. be added to Section III. A. Application for Admission

or Readmission —— to read as follows:
6. Readmission after five or more years:

a. An undergraduate student who has been readmitted through the
usual channels after an interruption of five or more years, and
who has completed at least one semester with a grade point
standing of 2.0 or better after readmission may choose to have all
or none of his previous University of Kentucky course work
counted toward graduation and toward the computation of his

grade point standing.

b. In addition, the dean of the student's college may permit
such a readmitted student who has elected not to count his past
work, to receive credit for selected courses without including
those grades in the computation of his grade point standing.

Minutes of the University Senate, April 17, 1972 - cont 3343

The Chairman announced that this motion had been approved by the Rules Committee.

q5§g> On question of why the proposal applied only to undergraduates the Chairman
reported that the Graduate School had had a statute of limitations for some
years; however, he would suggest that the Graduate Council might wish to con—
sider a similar type rule such as this proposal for the Graduate School.

motion was made to amend the motion to change the five year restriction
to two years.

At this point in the deliberations a representative from the Office of the Dean
of Admissions and Registrar expressed the concern of the Dean that the intent

of the present wording is to have the student lay out the five years and he did
not feel that the present wording would prohibit a student from attending another
institution within the five—year period; further, that the Dean felt that the
University should always keep a record of the entire career of the student

at the University regardless of what work is retained for the student for
graduation purposes.

.\,

T
( Following discussion concerning the arbitrary restriction of five years,
i.
I
f
f
\
I

The Chairman stated that there is nothing in this amendment that affects, in
any way, the permanent record; that this amendment merely permits the student
to have certain courses not counted for graduation purposes.

A Senator moved the question and the Senate voted to stop debate on the
amendment. The Senate then approved the amendment to change the five—year
restriction to two years.

The Chairman stated that the Dean of Admissions and Registrar had been con-
? sulted on the proposed change under consideration. A Senator then stated that
in view of the preceding questions raised by the representative of the Dean of
Admissions and Registrar, he moved to recommit the proposal, as amended, to

f the Senate Council. Following further debate, a Senator moved the question.

‘ The Senate voted to stop debate on the question of referral. The Senate then
“M“ defeated the motion to recommit the proposal, as amended, to the Senate Council

if? for further consideration.

[ A Senator then moved the previous question which the Senate approved following
[ which the Senate approved the change in Rules as presented by Mr. Hopson, and
% amended.

’ On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Hopson presented a motion to change
¢ the Senate Rules to delete the second paragraph under Section III. D. l.
Explanation of Certain Grades: Grade I; and to add a new paragraph so that
the first two_paragraphs under Grade l_would read:

"Grade I: The grade I means that part of the work of the course remains

l undone._ It shall be given only when there is a reasonable possibility that
f a passing grade will result from completion of the work. The instructor

‘ should not give an I grade when the reasons for incompleteness are unsatis—
factory to him or when it is not feasible to complete the work.

”An undergraduate student shall have the option, except in the case of
a course required for graduation, of hav