xt75mk65769d https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt75mk65769d/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1994-02-14  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, February 14, 1994 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 14, 1994 1994 1994-02-14 2020 true xt75mk65769d section xt75mk65769d MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY 14, 1994

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 pm, Monday, February 14, 1994, in Room 115 of the
Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Daniel L. Fulks, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Stephanie Atcher*, Mark C. Berger, Suketu P. Bhavsar*, Antimony Bishop,
Robert L. Blevins*, Rick Boland, Maria Boosalis*, Douglas A. Boyd, Joseph T. Burch, D. Allan Butterfield,
Lauretta Byars, Ben W. Carr, Edward A. Carter, Donald B. Clapp, Jane Clark, Jordan L.Cohen, Darby Cole,
Melissa Cox, Nancy Custer, Randall W. Dahl*, Lance Delong, Clarence Robert Dowdy, Richard Edwards,
Michael B. Freeman*, Lorraine Garkovich, Thomas F. Garrity*, William Gibson, William S. Griffith*, J. John
Harris, Zafar S. Hasan*, Christine Havice*, Floyd J. Holler, Chester A. Holmquist, Don A. Howard, Edward J .
Kasarskis, Richard I. Kermode, Kenneth K. Kubota Arthur Lieber*, C. Oran Little, Elizabeth P. Lorch, Erica
McDonald, Sandra Miller, David Mohney*, James S. Mosbey, David A. Nash*, Anthony L. Newberry, Barbara
Phillips, Thomas C. Robinson, Ellen B. Rosenman, David Shipley, Thomas J. Stipanowich, William J. Stober*,
David H. Stockham, Michael Stover, Phillip A. Tibbs*, Henry J. Vasconez, Mary Walker, Greg T. Watkins,
Chris Webb, Charles T. Wethington*, Brent White, Tommy E. Whittler. Carolyn A. Williams*, Eugene R.
Williams, Emery A. Wilson.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the February meeting of the University Senate. He stated that for lack of
a long agenda the December meeting had been canceled.

The Chair stated the first item was to approve the minutes from the November 8, 1994 meeting. There
were no corrections to the minutes and they were approved as circulated. Professor Fulks said that the
November minutes were now on View if yOu are Wang-based. If you are IBM—based they should be on in the
next few days. The October minutes are in the process of going on to View.

The Chair made the following announcements:

The Governor's Higher Education Review Commission has finished its work for now. Their
recommendations have been reported. Their final report is ready and if you would like to see a copy, it is
available in the following places; the Dean's Offices, from Senate Council Members, Dr. Juanita Fleming, the
President's Office, or from Cindy Todd at the Senate Council Office. Their are 14 recommendations in the
report, the one that got perhaps the most attention is the performance based funding issue. The Commission did
derive a list of criteria to be used for performance based funding. Many of these were developed as a result of
Senate Bill 109 which was two years ago. These performance based fimding criteria will be utilized in
determining whether the various state schools will receive their appropriate share of the budget increase for the
second year of this biennum and supposedly for years after that. If the Governor gets his way with 2% this year
and 3% for next year, then the performance based funding would be used only for that 3% increase and any
portion not earned by any state school would go back into general funds. Faculty input on that to date has been
minimal. The criteria have been established for that reasonably. There is concern that these criteria tie in with
the mission of the University. One result of the Governor's Commission was a revision of the various mission
statements from the Universities. He feels there is wide spread concern that these criteria for funding are tied to
the mission statements. There is some time between now and the time the criteria are actually utilized for
funding for there to be some input. The President and Chancellors seem more than willing to listen.

*Absence Explained


 Minutes, University Senate, February 14, 1994

The Chair would remind the Senate that the University has two mission statements as do all Universities in
the State. There is an inside and outside mission statement. There is a mission statement that is developed
essentially by the Council on Higher Education which is not quite as specific as what they have written for
themselves internally, with various self-study projects they have been through in the past years. The mission
statements that are referred to in the Governor's Commission Report are the CHE Mission Statements. His
understanding is that the primary purpose of those mission statements is to make it as clear as possible what the
mission of this University is relative to the other seven state Universities. They feel in the Senate Council that
they came out well with the revision of the mission statement this year in terms of protecting themselves as the
State's Flagship Institution.

There should be news on the Medical Center Chancellor's search in the next day or two according to the
President's Office. The Chancellor's Search Committee has met with seven different candidates. Those were
selected from a pool of well over 100 candidates with the assistance of some consultants. Those were

interviewed and the President plans to narrow that list to perhaps three. There will be a public statement on that
shortly. V

The plan from the President's Office is to defer the search for the Vice President for Research and Graduate
Studies. The first reason for this is the President wants to wait until the Medical Center Chancellor position has
been filled and that search is out of the way. Secondly, he wants to wait until the decision has been made in
terms of what to do with Centers and Institutes. The President feels that is an important issue in terms of
recruiting for the position. The position probably will not be filled before August and perhaps January 1995 is a
more realistic date.

The Senate Council has discussed Health Care Reform at length. Chairman Fulks would encourage the
Senate members to look into it and the impact it will have on faculty and staff. The bills in Frankfort now would
perhaps place University faculty and staff into a much larger eastern Kentucky alliance than what we have now.
The fate of the UK'HMO would be unclear at that point, it may survive as a provider and it may not. He would
encourage the Senate not to sit back and think that Health Care Reform will not impact them directly. Currently
they have a good plan and need to do what they can to protect it.

There are two changes in Administrative Regulations that are forthcoming. The Senate Council was asked
for input for both of them, the Senate Council is satisfied with the changes the President is recommending. The
first change concerns appointments for nontenured and tenured faculty. These are appointments and
reappointments for voluntary faculty. First, they will no longer require faculty letters of evaluation for voluntary
faculty. Secondly, appointments and reappointments for voluntary faculty may be made for three years.
Voluntary faculty are faculty who do not get paid. The second change concerns initial appointment,
reappointment, or terminal reappointment at the rank of instructor or full, associate, and assistant professor level.
If there is affirmative action coming through the deans office to the chancellor‘s office, it will continue to go to
the President for approval or disapproval. That is not a change. The change is that if there is disapproval at the
Chancellor or Vice-Presidential level then the proposal is stopped. It does not go to the President. The other
change in that AR would be that the Dean through the delegation from the Chancellor or Vice—President has the

authority to give final approval to a proposal for terminal reappointment. That delegation previously had to
come from the President.

Professor Davy Jones (Graduate School) stated that on the terminal reappointment there was a tradition
in that if the terminal reappointment was not a tenure decision but a third or fourth year reappointment, if the
Chair and the faculty so voted on it, it would go to an area committee beyond the level of the Dean to see


 Minutes, University Senate, February 14, 1994

whether the person should be reappointed rather than terminally reappointed. He asked if that had changed.
Professor Fulks said there was not a change affecting that.

Professor Hans Gesund (Engineering) asked if there had been any discussion on the parking situation.
Professor Fulks responded that the Senate Council had been surprised by that as well. He said that Joe Burch
told him it is the result of two years of study and some input. The Senate Council has invited Joe Burch to come
and speak with them on Wednesday, February 16, 1994.

The Chair then recognized the new members of the Senate Council for 1994. Professor Thomas Garrity,
Medicine, Professor James Applegate, Communications and Information Studies, Professor Michael Nietzel,
Psychology, and Greg Watkins, the new student representative. They are replacing Professor William Lyons,
Professor Carolyn Bratt, and Antimony Bishop. Professor Gretchen LaGodna is filling in this semester for
Professor Bradley Canon who is on sabbatical.

There have been some phone calls to the Senate Council office about excused absences. If you are not able
to attend the Senate meeting, you need to make it known to Susan Caldwell in the Registrar's Office, 257-7155.

The Chair then recognized Professor Jim Hougland for the following resolution:


James W. Gladden (1912-1993), Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of
Kentucky, died October 22. 1993, following a short illness. Professor Gladden lived a full life
characterized by two successful careers -- first as a Methodist minister and then as a Professor of
Sociology at the University of Kentucky. After earning his M.D.V. from Wesley Theological
School and serving for a decade as a minister, Professor Gladden decided to follow up on his
realization that religion is a phenomenon of far-reaching significance for understanding society.
He entered the sociology program at the University of Pittsburgh, earning his Ph.D. in 1945. He
joined the University of Kentucky faculty in 1949, and he continued his service to the University
and his students until he retired in 1978.

Professor Gladden came to the University of Kentucky prepared to teach the sociology of
religion, and he developed a very popular and respected course in this area. After joining the
faculty, he also discovered a strong demand for instruction in the sociology of the family.
Although the sociology of the family was initially a secondary interest, this turned out to be the
area in which he would be most widely known. For many years, he served as a member of the
Executive Board of the Southeastern Council on Family Relations and as a member of the
Lexington Planned Parenthood Advisory Board. Both before and after his retirement, he was in
wide demand as a speaker to community and special interest groups in the area of family planning
and changes in the institution of the family. His popularity as a speaker stemmed from his ability
to challenge conventional wisdom but to do so with impressive humor and grace. This, his
audiences viewed themselves as having a pleasant experience even when they were being
challenged to re-examine their assumption.


 Minutes, University Senate, February 14, 1994

These same characteristics made Professor Gladden a popular and widely respected
instructor -- one whose students remembered him long after graduation. In 1972, he was honored
both by the University of Kentucky Alumni Association (with a Great Teacher Award) and by the
National Council on Family Relations (with the Ernest Osborne Award) for his outstanding
teaching. His teaching was combined with a willingness to accept responsibility for leadership in
the administration of his department's undergraduate programs. Both through his own instruction
and his leadership, Professor Gladden contributed to the quality of the undergraduate education
experience during a time when the University as a whole was putting additional resources into
graduate education and research. The depth of his commitment to effective instruction is
communicated by the title that he gave to his autobiography, "Some Are Called to Teach."

Professor Gladden was a member of Southern Hills United Methodist Church. He is
survived by his wife, Helen Baur Gladden, two children, five stepchildren, twenty—six
grandchildren, and one great-granddaughter. Memorial Contributions may be made to the
Lexington Parkinson's Disease Support, Group, 1122 Providence Road, Lexington, KY 40502.

Professor Hougland asked that the resolution be included in the minutes.

Chairman Fulks then introduced Dr. Robert E. Hemenway, Chancellor, Lexington Campus for a Report on
Freshman Statistics. ~

Dr. Hemenway thanked Professor Fulks. He stated the Senate asked him each year to come and talk
about enrollment matters, specifically about the incoming freshman class for this year. This is a story of the
University of Kentucky that is a good story, one of the best success stories we have to tell. The admissions
policy is simple, basically they try to have an increase in the quality of the freshman class every year so they can
say to each entering freshman class, you are the best class that has entered the University of Kentucky. Secondly
the enrollment growth of that freshman class is somewhere in the one to two percent range. We are not in a
huge growth pattern for the University of Kentucky as least as far as the freshman class for the simple reason that
we are about at capacity. Particularly with the budget cuts that have occurred, if there were to be a huge
enrollment increase in the freshman class UK would have a hard time providing the students with a quality
education. The undergraduate enrollment growth is expected to be limited to the range of one to two percent.
The graduate enrollment growth will be somewhere in the two to five percent range. UK does not want to go
backwards, but does not want to enroll in such a way. that we would not be able to handle the students. The
other piece of that admissions policy is to put emphasis upon the areas where there is some over capacity in the
system. That is in the upper division level where there needs to be emphasis upon retaining students and moving
them through to graduation. The graphs for Dr. Hemenway's Report are attached to the minutes.

Student Enrollment - Here are the results of the policy in the Degree enrollments for this year. They are
virtually the same as last year, though there is some movement from category to category.

Degrees Awarded — Basically it is the same enrollment from year to year with a slight increase.

Entering Freshmen Retention Rates - This is why retention and graduation is something that needs to be
focused upon. In 1983 the University went to selective admissions, the retention rate from freshman to
sophomore in 1983 was only 58%. They were losing about 42% of the students between the freshman and
sophomore year. After selective admissions, we are in the range of only losing around 23 to 24% of freshmen
between the freshman and sophomore year. The question that should be relevant is that since 1984 there has


 Minutes, University Senate, February 14, 1994

been an increase in the quality of the student body as measured by ACT scores, yet we are still only at an average
of 76% retention between freshman and sophomore years.

Graduation Rates of Entering Freshmen - Retention is reflected in the graduation rates. In 1983 the last
year of open admission, there was a 39.4% graduation rate at the end of six years, and it has gone up every year
since. For the class of 1987, 50.5% graduated in six years. The question is, are we satisfied with 50.5%? Is that
what the graduation rate should be? Most would agree the graduation rate should be higher.

First-Time Freshmen Enrollment - Since 1989 enrollment has been in the range of 2,600 for the
incoming freshman class. A target is identified with the Admission staff each year, in 1993 that target was 2,600
students, 1992 was slightly below, and 1993 slightly above. The target for 1994 is 2,650. This is not an exact
science. It is very easy to be 150 students on one side or the other.

First-Time Freshmen by Residency - Overall about 19% of our undergraduates are from out-of state.
81% overall are Kentuckians. There has been a rise in out-of-state freshmen each year since 1989 and now about
27% of the freshman class is from out-of state. There are two reasons for that: (1) as there is significant
improvement in the quality of the freshman class; and (2) the University of Kentucky appears in Virtually
every national publication as a place where a quality education can be received at a relatively low cost. Those
publications look to facts such as enrollment of National Merit Scholars, average entering ACT, and tuition.
Even with the tuition increases over the last two years, the University of Kentucky is still a very low tuition state
in comparison to other states. We offer a quality education for that low tuition. Last year Money Magazine
listed the University of Kentucky as the 15th best buy in education, dropping to 23rd this year because of the
tuition increase. Every time one of those publications comes out there is a flood of out-of-state applications.

First-Time Freshmen Academic Accomplishments - The evidence of that national reputation is in the
quality of the freshman class. The number of Governor's Scholars has increased every year since 1989. National
Merit Scholars have gone from 12 in 1989 to 68 in 1993.

Fall 1993 National Merit Scholars U. K. and Benchmarks - In relation to our benchmarks, UK. is only
behind Ohio State in terms of National Merit Scholars enrolled. Among all U. S. Universities, the University of
Kentucky is 22nd, and 7th among public institutions.

First Time Freshmen, National, and State Mean ACT-E - ACT scores rose dramatically right after
selective admissions. They then leveled out at about 23.9 - 24 in the late 19808. Beginning in 1991, partly
because of adjustments made in the Admissions Management Policy, the score has risen to 24.6 for 1993. This is
the most significant rise in ACT scores in some time.

First-Time Freshmen Mean ACT-E by Residency - The Kentuckians that were admitted during 1993
actually had higher ACT scores that those who were out-of state. Dr. Fink talked with the Senate Admissions
Committee about that and this year there is in use a higher admissions requirement for out-of state students then

for in-state students. For the simple reason that the average ACT score should not be dragged down by the out-
of-state students admitted.

Fall 1992 & Fall 1993 First-Time Freshmen ACT-E Quartiles and Average - The significant thing
about this chart, is that it shows that where we really picked up students this year was in the upper range, in the
75th percentile. In this freshman class. 263 students, 10% of the freshman class had an ACT-E of over 30. 29%
of the freshman class have an ACT-E score of 27 or above. The point that can be drawn is that if this is the


 Minutes, University Senate, February 14, 1994

quality of the freshman class, and it is improving, why are not more students being retained from the freshman to
the sophomore level?

Ethnic Background of Fall 1993 First-Time Freshmen - For the 1993-1994 entering freshman class
there were 197 African American enrolled. That is 7.4% of the freshman class. There is now in the freshman

class an African American enrollment that is comparable to the African American population in the state of
Kentucky. ‘

Age of First-Time Freshmen Fall 1993 - It is very significant that 98.7% of the first time freshmen are 19
years of age or younger. This is a very traditional freshman class.

Status of First-Time Freshmen Fall 1993 - Further evidence that this is a very traditional class is that
99.6% are full-time students. The question becomes, are we sufficiently sensitive to these facts in our pedagogy
and in our expectations for learning? As full-time students, a great deal should be expected from these students.
As 19 year old adults are we expecting attitudes towards learning and work that they may not be ready for? If
not, what can be done to help those attitudes be a part of our class?

Fall 1993 First-Time Freshmen County of Origin - Where do freshmen come from? Basically it spreads
out across Kentucky. However, only 7.4% of the students are coming from Northern Kentucky. This should be
higher if the University of Kentucky is the institution of choice for all Kentuckians.

Fall 1993 Admitted First-Time Freshmen Automatic vs. Delayed - Students are admitted under the

Admissions requirements that the Senate and Faculty set. Students are automatically admitted if they meet
certain qualifications according to the step scale used by Admissions. For Fall 1993, 92% of the admissions to
the freshman class were automatic admits. The 8% is the only flexibility that is there. That can pose problems in
the future. If it comes to the point that everyone who applies to the Institution is under the automatic admit
category, they will be unable to make distinctions about ACT-E scores and other qualifications which give the
flexibility necessary to enroll the very best class each year.

Admissions and Projections for Entering Classes - The projections are up in the terms of in-state
applications, out—of—state applications, and the total is up. The projection is there will be about the same number
Of fieshmen entering next year as in 1993. The projections from the Admissions Office are for about 2.060 in-
state students enrolled, 590 out-of-state students enrolled, and somewhere in the range of 2,650 students
projected for enrollment. Two things have been factored in; 1) there will be some price resistance, simply
because some people are not able to pay the increased tuition, 2) the out-of-state' policy will have some effect

also, since they are deliberately making it more difficult for out—of-state students to enter the University of

In summary, Dr. Hemenway hopes the Senate feels that this is a considerable success story for the
University, one that is getting attention nationally. One reason it is a success story is there are very good people
working in this area; Joe Fink, Randy Mills, Don Byers, Lana Dearinger, and the people who work with and for
them, the Merit Scholarship Office with Kate Johnson and Connie Hunt, the Registrar's Office and the way that
Randy Dahl and his people feed into the whole process, and Roseann Hogan and the Office of Institutional
Research. This is a good working team that has had considerable success over the last two or three years.
Chancellor Hemenway asked that they receive a round of applause.


 Minutes, University Senate, February 14, 1994

A Senator asked if it was known how many students transferred to other colleges and eventually graduate
from the group that do not stay on. Dr. Hemenway answered that the Council on Higher Education was trying
to track that with an index they call a persistence rate. When they do that they get in the range of 70%. It can be
tracked within Kentucky. What they can not track is how many people leave the University of Kentucky and
graduate from an out—of-state school.

The question was asked if there was any information about transfer students. Were the numbers up and
was there any way of accessing the quality? Dr. Joe Fink answered that the numbers were up, both from
Community College sources and non community college sources. The Admissions Advisory Committee is
looking at standards used to apply to applicants as transfer students. The University of Kentucky has
traditionally worked closely with the Community Colleges. Don Byars and his group have been on every
community college campus during the fall and talked to potential transfer students, as well as advisors there.
When talking with comparable institutions, one of the things different about UK as compared to other schools is
the influx of transfer students. Dr. Hemenway stated that the University of Kentucky receives a significant
portion of high ACTE transfer students. ‘

Chairman Fulks asked Dr. Fink if there was an estimate of how many students UK receives from the
community college system. Don Byars answered that for 1993 there were just under 700 students; the figure has
gone up slightly the last few years.

The question was asked where do the students come from who are not from the community colleges. Dr.
Fink answered that most of them were typically Kentuckians who have gone out-of-state to start their college
careers and found they wanted to come back home.

Professor Martin McMahon (Law) said that while the six year graduation rate was slowly increasing he
noticed that the four year rate has been dropping and the five year rate was doing well until the entering class of
1988 and there was a dramatic drop for that group. He asked if there was any information on what is causing
that. Dr. Hemenway said he did not have an explanation for the 1988 peculiarity but had a general explanation
for four year graduation rates. More and more students either are not taking a fiill load or taking a full load and
working at the same time. They may be taking 12 or 14 hours and working 20 or 30 hours a week. That clearly
has something to do with costs. They are having to do that because of the cost of higher education. It is also
becoming more of a tradition. His impression is that young people are accustom to having more of the material
evidences of adulthood: a car, the ability to go out. Probably as a sign of the general affluence of the country
there is much more of an inclination to work. The data are overwhelming that there are many more students
working now for whatever reasons than there were previously. The other effect is that there are some curricula
in which you have to be a person of extraordinary discipline and concentration to complete in four years. Many
degree programs require up to 135 to 140 hours. That is something that will need to be addressed in all of
higher education, because as more and more focus on the cost of education, people are saying not only is the
price going up it is also extending out over a longer period of time.

Dr. Phil Greasley commented that two statistics had been given, 98.7% of entering first time freshman are
under 19 and 99.6% of those entering for the first are full-time. He asked what the percentages are in terms of
students in freshman status. Dr. Hemenway said there are many people who do not fall in that 19 years and
younger age category who are also listed as freshmen. There are numbers on that which can be supplied.

Chairman F ulks then recognized Professor Ray Cox, Chair-elect of the Senate Council for the first action
item. Professor Cox on behalf of the Senate Council moved approval of the proposed amendment to the


 Minutes, University Senate, February 14, 1994

Universig Senate Rules, Section I, The University Senate, circulated under the date of January 24, 1994,
concerning apportionment of faculty members elected to the Senate.

Professor Fulks read the following letter addressed to the Senate Council.
February 8, 1994

To: Dan Fulks
Chair, University Senate Council

From: David Puleo
Center for Biomedical Engineering

Re: Amendment to University Senate Rules, Section I, The University Senate

I would like to express my objection to the recommendation of the Senate Rules Committee
regarding representation of faculty members with primary appoints in Research and Graduate
Studies (RGS). As I understand this amendment, faculty members in RGS would have to choose
some other college to participate in election of Senate members and, thus, to be represented in the
Senate. The stated rationale is that only a small number of faculty members would fall into this
category. An unwritten reason is that some believe the Graduate Centers under RGS do not have
common interests, that this would be an artificial grouping. Therefore, the Graduate Centers
should be dismembered , for voting purposes at least. I disagree. Graduate Centers within the
RGS sector e.g., Biomedical Engineering and Toxicology, have as much, if not more, in common
than do departments in other colleges, e. g., Linguistics and Physics & Astronomy in the College of
Arts & Sciences. The Graduate Centers bring together faculty members who have different
expertise and who complement each other for the benefit of teaching and research in a common
field, e.g., biomedical engineering. Graduate Centers do have common interests, such as
promoting multidisciplinary approaches to advance graduate education. As research projects
become more complex, they may require multidisciplinary approaches. This trend is recognized at
the state and federal levels and in both academia and industry, as evidence by the creation and
funding of multidisciplinary research centers. This is just one reason why faculty members in RGS
should be represented as a group and should not be disbanded for voting.

Professor Dan Reedy (Graduate School) stated he was speaking against the proposal, not because faculty
members in the Graduate Centers should not be represented. He proposed that it be a principle of representation
but without transmigration. In the Governing Regulations part IV, Section 8.1 it reads, a graduate center is
defined as an education unit equivalent to a department. Graduate Centers, multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary
centers report to the dean of the Graduate School administratively as departments within a college report to the
dean of that college. The Dean of the Graduate School has the same authority and responsibilities as those of the
dean of a college in the administration of educational units that might be transferred to or developed under the
office of the Dean of the Graduate School. If these things are true, that the graduate center is the same as a
department, that a graduate center reports administratively through a dean who has academic responsibilities as
defined in that section on educational units then faculty with primary appointment in Biomedical Engineering, the
Martin School, the Patterson School, and in Toxicology should be considered as department faculty in a college


 Minutes, University Senate, February 14, 1994

for purposes of representation in the University Senate. They should not have to choose an affiliation with some
other unit. There is the argument that there is no commonality among these units. Indeed there is; they are
identified as being multidisciplinary graduate centers only, without undergraduate programs and the very aspect
of the multidisciplinan'ty is their singularity. That they are too small, there are 20 faculty members in these units
right now. How many regular professors are there in the College of Social Work? Today's count is 17.
Architecture has 23 and Allied Health has 26. What is too small? He would like to offer a substitute motion,
that the Senate Council be directed to provide for apportionment of faculty members in centers and institutes for
election to the Senate under guidelines currently available for such appointment of faculty in other colleges and
departments within the University. That prerogative has been available to the Senate all along and the necessity
to treat the Center and Institute Faculty is one of singling them out as being different but is not a necessity under
the Governing Regulations of the University not existing. '

Chairman Fulks stated there was a substitute motion on the floor. The motion was seconded. Having
attended the meeting of the Rules Committee when the proposal was offered, the intent does not differ. This is