xt75x63b2v6g https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt75x63b2v6g/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1978-11-13 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, November 13, 1978 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 13, 1978 1978 1978-11-13 2020 true xt75x63b2v6g section xt75x63b2v6g UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTOVI KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

November 8, 1978

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
November 13, 1978 at 3:00 p. n1. in the Court Room of the Law
Building.

AGENDA:

Approval of the Minutes of October 9, 1978.
Brief Comments: Joseph A. Bryant, Jr. , Chairman

Action Items:

a) Proposal to establish a policy on Medical Disability:
A recommendation from the University Senate to the Ad—
ministration for implementation. (Circulated under date
of November 3, 1978.)

1)) Proposal to change the Senate Rules (Section I,

2. 2.1 [a)) to extend the term of the Senate Council Chair-
man on the Senate Council. (Circulated under date of
November 6, 1978)

c) Proposal to extend eligibility of Sergeant—At—Arms

to allow members of the staff to serve in this capacity.
(Circulated under date of November 8, 1978.)

Elbert W. Ockerman
Sec retary

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, NOVEMBER 13, 1978

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, November 13, 1978,
in the Court Room of the Law Building.

Joseph A. Bryant, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Michael Adelstein, C. Dwight Auvenshine, Michael A. Baer, Charles E.
Barnhart, R. Paul Baumgartner*, Mark Birkebak*, Brack A. Bivins*, A. Edward Blackhurst*,
Jack C. Blanton, Robert N. Bostrom*, C. Frank Buck*, Joseph T. Burch, John L. Butler*,

Joe B. Buttram*, Patricia Cegelka, Linda Chen*, Donald B. Clapp, Lewis W. Cochran, Clinton
Collins*, Frank Colton*, Ronda S. Connaway*, Samuel F. Conti*, Paul Davis*, Patrick P.
DeLuca*, George W. Denemark, David E. Denton, Ronald C. Dillehay*, Roland Duell*, Anthony
Eardley, W. W. Ecton*, Jane Emanuel*, Richard A. Etlin*, Wilbur W. Frye*, James E. Funk*,
Alexander Gilchrist*, Jon P. Gockerman*, Abner Golden*, Robert B. Grieves*, George W.
Gunther*, Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hasan*, Raymond R. Hornback, Charles W. Hultman*,

Clyde L. Irwin, H. Douglas Jameson, Malcolm E. Jewell*, James D. Kemp*, Edward J. Kifer*,
Robert W. Kiser, James A. Knoblett, Mark Koopman, Jane Kotchen*, Joseph Krislov, William B.
Lacy*, Thomas P. Lewis, Austin S. Litvak*, Paul Mandelstam*, Kenneth M. Martin*, William L.
Matthews, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Phillip W. Miller, Scott Moffitt, William G. Moody*,
Robert C. Noble, Philip J. Noffsinger*, Elbert W. Ockerman*, Merrill W. Packer, Bobby C.
Pass*, Ronda S. Paul, William K. Plucknett, Deborah E. Powell*, Kim Ratcliff*, David H.
Richardson, Wimberly C. Royster*, Ramona Rush*, Stanley R. Saxe*, Gerard E. Silberstein*,
Otis A. Singletary*, John T. Smith, Stanford L. Smith, Tim Smith*, Lynn Spruill*, John B.
Stephenson, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Gene Tichenor, Lee T. Todd*, M. Stanley Wall, Richard L.
Warren*, Mike Whitlock*, Paul Willis, J. Robert Wills, Constance P. Wilson*, H. David
Wilson*, Robert G. Zumwinkle*

The minutes of the regular meeting of October 9, 1978, were accepted as circulated.

The Chairman reminded the Senators of the Christmas party scheduled for Tuesday,
December 12, from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. at the Alumni House. He noted that the proposal for
a Multidisciplinary Gerontology Center, originally scheduled for the agenda, had been
withdrawn for consideration at a later date. He also assured those present that the
"investigation of the office of the Physical Plant by the Senate Council,” reported in
the Kernel, was neither underway nor contemplated. He observed that the Council had
merely taken notice of complaints made against that office and referred the whole matter
to a sub—committee.

The Chairman recognized Professor Daniel Reedy for a motion. On the recommendation
of the Committee on Academic Organization and Structure and with the concurrence of the
University Senate Council, Professor Reedy moved approval of the proposal to establish a
policy on Medical Disability. This was circulated to members of the University Senate
under date of November 3, 1978.

The Chairman noted that there was a statement of background from the Senate Council
in the circulated proposal and also a statement in the proposal itself. He added that
the Council was not proposing legislation in this matter since the Senate does not have
the power to legislate here. It does have the power and responsibility to recommend to
the Administration its' considered opinion on any subject that affects either directly
or indirectly the academic program. The Chairman then asked Professor Andrew Grimes,
Chairman of the Committee that had formulated the proposal, to come forward and answer
questions.

*Absence explained

_2_

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Zolondek said that
it seemed to him that at the present time the University did not have what one would call
partial disability but was opening the mechanism for a person totally disabled that when
he returned he would be going under partial disability. Why not, he asked, face the
problem from the front door rather than the back?

Professor Grimes replied that the TIAA insurance does not cover partial disability
but total disability. What the current proposal attempts to do is to provide a transitional
period from the status of total disability to a return to regular employment. It recom—
mends a policy that will encourage a person who is not totally disabled and wants to
return to work with full time faculty status to do so. Professor Zolondek objected that
the proposal does not take into account partial disability and noted that it applied only
to faculty members who have been totally disabled and are now seeking to return to work.
Professor Grimes acknowledged that the report does not address the problem of partial
disability.

The Chairman then called attention to the six (6) principles set forth in the proposal
and asked for comment on these separately. One Senator asked for clarification of items
six (6) and seven (7). The Chairman noted that item six (6) simply required the University
to secure independent medical opinion as needed and that item seven (7) required the
University to recognize the need for a transition period.

Dr. Bosomworth said that he would like to commend the Committee for attempting to
formalize the proposal. The Deans of the Medical Center had met and believed the proposal
could be improved in certain technical ways. He noted that in item five (5), the proposal
dealt with the formulation of a policy which carries the responsibility of managing the
rehabilitation as an institutional responsibility. This portion of the policy recommenda—
tion will require further definition and careful analysis for flexibility.

Professor Grimes replied that the document was not a statement of policy but a statement
of principles that should help to formulate the policy.

Professor Lienhard observed that he was uneasy with an attempt to write a book of rules
governing an operation which apparently was being done successfully without rules. Professor
Oberst replied that the problem was that the operation had not been conducted successfully.
State law does not permit spending money for the Commonwealth except for services rendered;
the University is now attempting to establish a policy which will permit it to deal with
those academic public servants who for one reason or another have become disabled. Professor
Wagner noted that the proposal does not eliminate the current informal arrangements but
deals directly with the whole disability issue. Professor Grimes said that operationally
the proposal addressed directly those cases when the departmental resources are unable to
handle the short time, one semester disability issue. Professor Zolondek then asked about
the legal status of the distribution of effort. Professor Grimes replied that he did not
know about the legal status of the distribution effort but that if someone were on partial
disability and in the transition period and subsequently returned to full—time status, that
arrangement would be reflected in a revised distribution of effort.

One Senator observed that this whole matter was not the Senate's business. The Chair—
man acknowledged as much, but observed that the Senate was obligated to make recommendations
to the Administration about any matter affecting the academic program.

A motion was made and seconded to approve the proposal and to transmit it to the
Administration. The motion passed.

_3_
The proposal as presented reads as follows:

Medical Disability Committee Report:

The policies and procedures in the University's regulations which
govern the process and decision—making involved in changing a
faculty member's status from ”regular faculty appointment" to
"disability leave" are quite clear. The faculty member applies
for disability leave and with the recommendation of his physician,
it is granted.

However, a considerable amount of uncertainty and misinformation
exists at all levels of the University concerning the reverse pro—
cess. It is not clear how a faculty member changes his status
from disability leave back to regular faculty appointment. The
question becomes considerably more difficult when the disability
results from psychiatric disorders.

The absence of clear policies presently requires each faculty
member's case to be considered in an ad hoc, sometimes informal
and at times arbitrary manner. Faculty subject to the reality of
declining health now have to endure the additional hardships
created by uncertainty in the administration of the program, since
administrators have few guidelines for dealing with the issues.

Principles:

1) Tenured and non—tenured faculty on total disability have
the right to regular employment status when the condition
of their health improves to the point where they are able
to meet the customary requirements of performance. Total
disability is considered as a leave of absence without pay.

Reason: Total disability is not to be confused with (l)
retirement for medical reasons, or (2)termination for
medical reasons (see Figure l). The former is possible
only at the request of the faculty member (p. 10, Board
of Trustees Minutes, April 5, 1977), the latter should
occur only after prescribed procedures (pp. 184—191, AAUP
Bulletin Summer, 1976 , see 4 (e)). In these two events,
procedures must be followed which are designed to protect
the rights and privileges of the faculty member.

These two procedures include safeguards to tenure and
academic freedom which would be violated if faculty did
not have the right to return to their regular faculty
status when their health is improved.

It may be that the assumptions under which the disability
program was designed or implemented were unrealistic. In
particular, returning to regular faculty status seems not

to have been considered a likely alternative after total
disability. Customarily, faculty either elected early re—
tirement for medical reasons or passed away; both situations
avoid the issue of returning to full—time faculty status.

The University has an obligation to facilitate the restora—
tion to health (particularly in the case of psychiatric
disorders) of previously capable and productive faculty.

Reasons: Widely held beliefs about equity and reward for
long and loyal service obviously support the principle.
In addition, the University has an interest in healthy,
capable faculty.

From a pragmatic perspective, such a supportive posture

by the University will have a positive effect on the morale
of all those in the academic community. Maintaining some
part of one's faculty role, even if on disability leave,
may be therapeutic. The work routine and interactions
associated with a faculty position are probably useful for
rehabilitation.

University and departmental administrators should cooperate
with medical experts and authorities in developing a re-
habilitation program that both meets the needs of the
faculty member and does not compromise the primary mission
of the University.

Reason: The University milieu may be appropriate to meet
the therapy requirements of particular faculty members. The
work environment of faculty is the arena in which they must
function successfully if they are to remain in academia.

Candid consultations between physicians and university ad—
ministrators, and even colleagues may provide valuable in—
sights to understanding disabilities and their rehabilitation.

Obviously the work setting is not to be considered only a
therapy setting, but to some extent the University and depart—
ment can facilitate and support rehabilitation efforts.

Ordinary departmental resources (office space, services,
clerical assistance) should be committed to a rehabilitation
program.

Reason: Departmental resources can usually accommodate to

the requirements of a faculty member on disability leave. Such
resources help maintain the bond between the faculty member
who is disabled and his department colleagues and the rest of
the University community. Such bonds are probably valuable to
the disabled faculty member.

If rehabilitation efforts will require economic and manpower
resources beyond those of a given department, such resources
should be committed to a rehabilitation program by a higher
administration level.

Reason: Department manpower and economic resources are
limited and allotted to specific programs and activities.
Ordinarily, slack in these resources does not exist at the

-5-

department level to support a rehabilitation program for a
disabled faculty member. These resources can only be com—
mitted to the rehabilitation effort by higher levels of
administration.

When a disabled faculty member decides to return to full
time regular status and has his physician's recommendation
to do so, the University may elect to secure an independent
medical opinion of the faculty member's condition. Should
the two medical opinions differ significantly, the two
disagreeing physicians may jointly agree on a third inde—
pendent medical opinion whose judgment should help resolve
the differences.

Reason: A high degree of uncertainty is associated with
long term prognostications, particularly about psychiatric
disabilities. A panel of expert opinion might reduce the
uncertainty.

In view of the uncertainty associated with psychiatric ill—
ness, and other health problems, the sharp distinctions
between ”full time faculty employment" and "disability
leave” should be reduced. An ”explicit” period of transi—
tion must be recognized when a faculty member is attempting
to come back on the job after a period of disability. The
transition may include:

(1) A change of duties in the department.
(2) Part time responsibilities.

(3) A change to another department.

(4) Other viable changes.

The transition period should be designed by the University
administration in conjunction with the faculty member's
physician and TIAA's rehabilitation program. The period
should be primarily therapeutic for the faculty member.
The period should be for a specified length of time.
Standards of work performance and compensation should be
established for the period consistent with the faculty
member's health and his capacity for work. Both work and
medical progress should be systematically monitored during
the period.

Reason: It is completely unrealistic to believe a faculty
member will be able to return to his regular faculty posi—
tion without some special consideration. Variation in per—
formance of some duties at some point in time will no

doubt occur until the faculty member completely or satis—
factorily recovers.

Such a period of transition will reduce the pressure of
immediate recovery and the fear of failure for the faculty
member.

—6—
\

In addition, a period of transition is consistent with the
present rehabilitation orientation of TIAA. ”Part time”
work as part of a program of rehabilitation orientation is
encouraged by TIAA. They will pay benefits on the lost
portion of the income. Medical and work progress is re—
viewed by TIAA in such programs (6/22/78), phone conversa—
tion with M. Byrne, TIAA, summarized in Appendix I).

In addition to rights of students, right of departmental
colleagues must be considered, both during the transition
period and when the disabled faculty member returns to
regular employment status. Any replacement of a disabled
faculty member must be considered temporary unless the
university is prepared to grant permanent tenure to the
replacement, with the understanding that the disabled
faculty member may return to full time active status.

Reason: Mental health problems are probably associated
more with faculty classroom responsibilities than with
research or service. Student opportunity for competent
teaching must not be compromised by therapeutic impera—
tives.

Faculty colleagues should not be unduly burdened by the
situation created by the disability of the faculty member.
Obviously, some inconveniences can be expected and should
be accepted by collegues.

Faculty colleagues should be supportive of a faculty member
on disability or in a transition period. This supportive
and facilitative faculty posture should be encouraged and
shared by the administration.

Reason: Supportive colleagues are a most important resource
of a psychologically disabled faculty member. Recovery can
probably be hastened by the support of interested colleagues
who involve the disabled faculty member (to the extent con—
sidered therapeutic) in the affairs of the department.

Financial hardships of the disabled faculty member should

be minimized by the University. Some increase in the dis—
abled faculty member's disability pay should be incorporated
into the disability program, as long as we are in an in—
flationary period.

Reason: Over one—half the current TIAA disability programs
have a 3% benefit increase provision. A disabled faculty
member has an extra financial burden; he or she not only
has a reduced salary, but may also have increased medical
expenses. Financial burdens are probably responsible for
faculty applying to return to regular employment status
prematurely. Some of the financial strain can be reduced
by the University through increased insurance coverage.

-7-

Faculty colleagues and administrators should be as candid
and open as possible when communicating with faculty mem—
bers on disability leave or in a period of transition. Such
faculty should be equally communicative with their col-
leagues and administrators.

Reason: Misunderstandings can easily occur when disability
becomes a possibility. Misunderstandings about psychia—
tric disorders become even more problematic since often
associates are unsure how to interact with the disabled
faculty member. Embarrassment and deception often are
associated with the interactions between those with psychia—
tric disorders and their associates. Such conditions are
dysfunctional to both the achievement of University goals
and to the recovery of the disabled faculty member.

Policies and procedures for the termination of faculty
for medical reasons should be developed. Such policies
should be consistent with the recommendations of AAUP
and the principles for disability presented above.

Reason: Termination for medical reasons is one possible
outcome following a period of total disability and un—
successful rehabilitation. Faculty rights and privileges
must be protected if a faculty member cannot for medical
reasons fulfill the terms of his/her appointment. (See:
pp. 184—191, AAUP Bulletin (Summer 1976), section 4(e)

for recommended procedures).

The principles presented above should guide the formulation
of policies and procedures for disability leave and termina-
tion for non—faculty employees.

Neither of the next two motions met the ten—day circulation rule and in both cases
motion was seconded and passed to suspend that rule.

The Chairman again recognized Professor Reedy, who on behalf of the Senate Council
recommended approval of a proposal to change the Senate Rules to extend the term of the
Senate Council Chairman if necessary to fill out an academic year. The Chairman explained
the rationale for the proposal and the floor was opened for questions and discussion.
Professor Lienhard called attention to an inaccuracy in the background statement of the
proposal, and motion was made and seconded to amend that statement to read, that "Senators
are elected to the Senate Council for calendar years." The motion passed even though
neither the Chairman nor any member of the Senate noticed that no change had actually been
made. The motion on the proposal then passed unanimously. It reads as follows:

Proposal:

Last February, the Senate Council voted to allow a member of the
Council elected as Chairman to continue on the Council for an
additional semester to fill out the academic year. This was done
in recognition of facts that Senators are elected to the Senate
Council for calendar years and that the tenure of the Chairman of
the Senate Council extends through an academic year. The reason

is that frequently persons who are eminently suited to serve as
Chairman cannot legitimately do so because they do not have a full
term remaining. The Council, therefore, would seek an amendment
to the Rules (Section I, 2.2.1 a ).

Note: The change will be forwarded to the Senate Rules Committee
for codification.

The Chairman again recognized Professor Reedy, who on behalf of the Senate Council,
recommended approval of the proposal to extend the eligibility of the Sergeant—At—Arms
to allow members of the staff to serve in this capacity. The floor was opened for questions
and discussion. There being no discussion, the motion passed. This proposal reads as
follows:

Proposal:

The Senate Council approved the recommendation that the eligi—
bility of the Senate Officer, Sergeant—At—Arms, be extended

to allow any member of the staff to serve in this capacity,

and recommends this change in the Senate Rules (Section I, 2.4.4)
to the University Senate.

Note: The change will be forwarded to the Senate Rules Committee
for codification.

The Senate adjourned at 3:50 p.m.

Martha M. Ferguson
Recording Secretary

(Llnirwz Hillanlu (H)301
Special Collections Dept.
4 King Library 1

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

November 3, 1978

Members , University Senate

Unive r sity S enate C ouncil

AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting
Monday, November i3, 19 8, Proposal to establish
a policy on Medical Disability; a recommendation
from the University Senate to the Administration for
implementation,

Background:

For a long time the University has had Regulations governing the
granting of disability [leave to faculty members who for one reason
or another cannot perform their duties, Until recently, no pro—
blems with these Regulations had become apparent. In fact, the
majority of faculty members who had gone on disability leave had
not subsequently returned to full active dutyo Within recent months,
however, it developed that the University has no clear policy re—
garding the return of disabled members to duty, and thus the pos-
sibility exists that University actions in this area may be arbitrary
and unequal. The Senate Council, therefore, asked the Committee
on Academic Organization and Structure to appoint a subcommittee
to study the matter. This committee, composed of Andrew Grimes,
Chairman, Ellen Baxter and Jesse Weil, studied it at considerable
length, considered the policies at other institutions, and consulted
the views of the AAUP. On August 30 of this year, they presented
their report to the Senate Council, which made suggestions for a
few minor revisions and additions and voted to forward the report
to members of the University Senate for discussion as a recommen-
dation to the Administration,

Medical Disability Committee Report:

The policies and procedures in the University‘s regulations which
govern the process and decision—making involved in changing a
faculty member's status from "regular faculty appointment" to
"disability leave” are quite clear. The faculty member applies for

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

Page 2
Agenda Item: Medical Disability
November 3, 1978

disability leave and with the recommendation of his physician, it is
granted,

However, a considerable amount of uncertainty and misinformation
exists at all levels of the University concerning the reverse process.
It is not clear how a faculty member changes his status from dis-
ability leave back to regular faculty appointment. The question be-
comes considerably more difficult when the disability results from
psychiatric disorders.

The absence of clear policies presently requires each faculty mem—
ber‘s case to be considered in an ad hoc, sometimes informal and

at time arbitrary manner. Faculty subject to the reality of declining
health now have to endure the additional hardships created by uncer—
tainty in the administration of the program, since administrators
have few guidelines for dealing with the issues.

This report offers a statement of principles that should guide the
formulation of policies and procedures necessary to permit faculty
and employees to return to regular status should their health permit.
Reasons and rationale supporting the principles are offered.

Principles:

1) Tenured and non-tenured faculty on total disability have
the right to regular employment status when the condition of
their health improves to the point where they are able to
meet the customary requirements of performance. Total
disability is considered as a leave of absence without pay.

Reason: Total disability is not to be confused with (1) re-
tirement for medical reasons, or (2) termination for medi-
cal reasons (see Figure l). The former is possible only
at the request of the faculty member (p. 10, Board of
Trustees Minutes, April 5, 1977), the latter should occur
only after prescribed procedures (pp. 184-191, AAUP
Bulletin [Summer, 1976], see 4 ( )), In these two events,
procedures must be followed which are designed to protect
the rights and. privileges of the faculty member.

Page 3
Agenda Item: Medical Disability
November 3, 1978

It may be that the assumptions under which the disability
program was designed or implemented were unrealistic.

In particular, returning to regular faculty status seems not
to have been considered a likely alternative after total dis-
ability. Customarily, faculty either elected early retire—
ment for medical reasons or passed away; both situations
avoid the issue of returning to full-time faculty status.

The University has an obligation to facilitate the restora-
tion to health (particularly in the case of psychiatric disor—
ders) of previously capable and productive faculty.

Reasons: Widely held beliefs about equity and reward for
long and loyal service obviously support the principle. In
addition, the University has an interest in healthy, capable
facultyo

From a pragmatic perspective, such a supportive posture
by the University will have a positive effect on the morale

of all those in the academic community. Maintaining some
part of one's faculty role, even if on disability leave, may
be therapeutic. The work routine and interactions as socia-
ted with a faculty position are probably useful for rehabilita—
tion.

University and departmental administrators should cooperate
with medical experts and authorities in developing a rehabili—
tation program that b_o‘_c_h_ meets the needs of the faculty mem—
ber and does not compromise the primary mission of the
University.

Candid consultations between physicians and university ad-
ministrators, and even colleagues may provide valuable in-
sights to understanding disabilities and their rehabilitation.

Obviously the work setting is not to be considered only a
therapy setting, but to some extent the University and depart—
ment can facilitate and support rehabilitation efforts.

Page 4
Agenda Item: Medical Disability
November 3, 1978

Ordinary departmental resources (office space, services,
clerical assistance) should be committed to a rehabilitation
program.

Reason: Departmental resources can usually accommodate
to the requirements of a faculty member on disability leave.
Such resources help maintain the bond between the faculty
member who is disabled and his department colleagues and
the rest of the University community. Such bonds are pro—
bably valuable to the disabled faculty member.

Reason: Department manpower and economic resources are

limited and allotted to specific programs and activities. Or-
dinarily, slack in these resources does not exist at the de—
partment level to support a rehabilitation program for a dis—
abled faculty member° These resources can only be com-
mitted to the rehabilitation effort by higher levels of admin-
istration.

When a disabled faculty member decides to return to full
time regular status and has his physician’s recommendation
to do so, the University may elect to secure an independent
medical opinion of the faculty member's condition. Should
the two medical opinions differ significantly, the two dis—
agreeing physicians may jointly agree on a third indepen-
dent medical opinion whose judgment should help resolve
the differences.

Reason: A high degree of uncertainty is associated with long
term prognostications, particularly about psychiatric dis-

abilities. A panel of expert opinion might reduce the uncer-
tainty.

In View of the uncertainty associated with psychiatric illness,
and other health problems, the sharp distinctions between

"full time faculty employment” and ”disability leave” should

be reduced. An "explicit" period of transition must be recog-
nized when a faculty member is attempting to come back on

the job after a period of disability. The transition may include:

Page 5
Agenda Item: Medical Disability
November 3, 1978

A change of duties in the department,

Part time reSponsibilitiesa
A change to another department.
Other viable changes“,

The transition period should be designed by the University
administration in conjunction with the faculty member's
physician and TIAA's rehabilitation programa The period
should be primarily therapeutic for the faculty membero
The period should be for a specified length of time.
Standards of work performance and compensation should
be established for the period consistent with the faculty
member's health and his capacity for work. Both work
and medical progress should be systematically monitored
during the period.

Reason: It is completely unrealistic to believe a faculty
member will be able to return to his regular faculty posi-
tion without some special consideration. Variation in per—
formance of some duties at some points in time will no
doubt occur until the faculty member completely or satis—
factorily recovers.

Such a period of transition will reduce the pressure of
immediate recovery and the fear of failure for the faculty
member.

In addition, a period of transition is con