xt786688kv3t https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt786688kv3t/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1985-09-09  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, September 9, 1985 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, September 9, 1985 1985 1985-09-09 2020 true xt786688kv3t section xt786688kv3t UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY



Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
September 9, 1985, at 3 p.m. in ROOM 116 of the THOMAS HUNT MORGAN
BIOLOGY BUILDING. (PLEASE NOTE: This is a change from where the
Senate has met in past years. We will be meeting in a more centrally
located and less cavernous room. The Morgan Building is on the
southwest corner of Rose and Washington Streets. Room 116 is the
first room on your right if you come in the Rose Street entrance.)



V1. Minutes of May 6, 1985.

*1. Remarks by President Otis A. Singletary.
Introduction of Senate Officers and Committee Chairs.

Academic Ombudsman's Report for 1984—85 Academic Year: Dr.
Charles Ellinger.

Chairman's Announcements and Remarks:
a. General.

b. Pertaining to CHE Strategic Plan for Higher Education and
Senate Council Response.

IRMA/I; C’d- L “LL” ' (A Randall Dahl

I‘ L Secretary
A‘ ‘I . '




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:05 p.m., Monday, September 9,
l985, in room ll6 of the Thomas Hunt Morgan Building.

Bradley C. Canon, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: Frank Allana, R. A. Altenkirch*, Roger B. Anderson, Charles E.
Barnhart, Raymond F. Betts, Jack C. Blanton, Tex Lee Boggs, Peter P. Bosomworth,
Daniel J. Breazeale, John Cain, I. K. Chew, Emmett Costich*, George F. Crewe*,
Stephen C. Deger, Richard C. Domek*, Herbert N. Drennen, Anthony Eardley, Donald G.
Ely, Carolyn Fore*, Richard N. Furst, Fletcher Gabbard, Marilyn D. Hamann*, Leonard
E. Heller, Robert E. Hemenway*, Raymond R. Hornback, Gregg Hovious, Susan Johnson*,
Robert G. Lawson, O. J. Loewer, Edgar D. Maddox, Kenneth E. Marino*, Peggy Meszaros,
Donald J. Mullineaux, Michael T. Nietzel, Merrill w. Packer*, Bobby C. Pass*, Richard
Perkins, John J. Piecoro*, Robin D. Powell, Peter Purdue, Thomas C. Robinson, Gerald
A. Rosenthal, Charles Sachatello, Karen Skaff*, Carol B. Stelling, Louis Straub*,
Joseph V. Swintosky*, Michael G. Tearney, Kenneth R. Thompson, Kellie Towles, Marc J.
Wallace, Angene Wilson, Carolyn Williams

The Minutes of the meeting of May 6, l985, were approved as circulated.

Chairman Canon said he was Chairman of the Senate Council and the President of
the University Senate is Dr. Otis A. Singletary, President of the University.
Traditionally the President addresses the Senate at the September meeting and the
Chairman said this year was no exception. He said it was no secret that the
University had undergone some unusual events during the past year and particularly

over the summer. The Chairman felt the President's talk would be of particular
interest to all of the Senators and to the entire University community. The Chair-
man welcomed President Singletary to give his State of the University address.

A summary of the President's remarks follow:

President Singletary welcomed the Senators for another school year
and said their return this particular year marked the end of what he
would describe as the longest, most active, and in many ways the most
difficult summer he could remember. This was the summer when the Boards
at the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky received
and acted upon the reports having to do with merging the two institu—
tions. Both Boards came to exactly the same conclusion and that was
this is not the time to attempt to put the two institutions under one
governing board. Other important issues of the summer were the ter-
mination of the Coal Research Contract, the Special Session of the
Legislature which passed Governor Collins' education bill, the adoption
of the operating budget for the University, and the unveiling of what
has been called the Council on Higher Education strategic plan.

The information items which the President felt were of interest to
the Senate concerned enrollment, the report on Faculty Alternatives, the
report on General Education, salaries, and physical facilities.

The President reported that the overall enrollment is down but less

than one percent. On the main campus the enrollment is close to 2l,OOO.
The Community College System has an enrollment of 23,700. This is a

*Absence explained


 total loss of between 300 and 400 students. There is a substantial
increase in the freshman class even though the University has a selec—
tive admissions policy. The President felt the increase was due to the
merit scholarships to help students to make the decision to come to
this University. He also felt the active recruitment effort from the
Admissions Office had helped and felt the effort should be intensified,
particularly outside the state. He hoped the increase also reflected a
change in perception about UK as a quality institution. Last year UK
had the only freshman class of any public institution in Kentucky with
ACT scores above the national average.

Enrollments are down in Engineering and Agriculture, up in Com-
munications, Social Work, Architecture, and Nursing, and steady in Arts
and Sciences, Business and Economics, Home Economics, Pharmacy, and
Education. The President was happy to report that the Graduate School
enrollment continued to increase.

The President has received the recommendation from the Senate
Council on the Pival Report on Faculty Alternatives. A committee has
been appointed by the Senate to assess the options as they apply to
early retirement and to recommend and develop regulations for implemen-
tation. The other part of the report dealt with the area of faculty
development and renewal and has been referred to the Chancellors with
the request they have it reviewed and make appropriate recommendations
to the president.

President Singletary also commented on the General Education report

from the Swift Committee which was circulated last spring. The Presi-
dent urged the Senators to give the report very thoughtful attention.

He said, ”I hope you won't give further credence to that old cliche that
attempting to change curriculum always has the same social, political
and psychological ramifications of moving a cemetery.”

During the Special Session of the Legislature the "salary cap” was
removed and the President‘s feeling is the cap will not be put back, but
at the same time no additional dollars were appropriated for salary. He
said the University's budget was being reviewed to see if some adjust—
ments could be made about the salary problem. He felt the best that
could be done was to move in the direction of having some additional
dollars for the most serious and most pressing of the merit cases and to
have some available dollars to deal with preventing the loss of key
people. At the Board Meeting next week the President proposes to
present the Five—year Plan and the next biennial budget request in which
the priorities will be salaries, academic support and Centers of

President Singletary gave an update on the physical facilities. He
was happy to report that the new Pharmacy Building was nearing com-
pletion with full operation by the Spring Semester. The second state-
funded project in construction is the Mining and Minerals Building.
There is one University-funded building which is the Animal Care
Facility. There are other active projects supported from private funds
including the Markey Cancer Center, the Combs Research Foundation
Building, the Equine Research Center, and the Faculty Club. The


 Athletic Association has several projects, all with private support.
There is an effort underway to raise funds for the Athletics Training

The President announced that within the next few weeks he proposes
to appoint an ad hoc committee to take a long-range look at the Univer—
sity and provide a relatively realistic proposal of what the goals
should be and what it would take to put the University where it ought to
be within the next fifteen or twenty years.

President Singletary also announced that it was his intention to
make a formal announcment of his own future and plans during the course
of the academic year. In the meantime he plans to continue doing
everything he can to address the concerns and problems facing the

The President felt it was important that the faculty understand
certain things about the Council on Higher Education's strategic plan.
He said the Council's plan represented the work of only one of two
groups studying higher education. The Legislature has a SCR 30 group,
and the President reported that he had no knowledge of what that group
would do, but that he wanted the Senate to know this group is there and
that they are powerful. The other group is the Council itself. He said
the first Council draft proposed to treat this institution harshly. A
number of the options were to take the Community Colleges away, close
down the Dental School, restrict enrollment in the Law School, put the
Medical Center under another board and seek alternative funding for
agriculture research and extension. He said he did not object to every—
thing in the latest version of the Council plan, and he felt the faculty
should be aware of the things the University did support in the docu-
ment. He said that he could not agree more with the stated goal "that
this state needs one nationally recognized comprehensive University and
it ought to be the University of Kentucky.” Last month more than 30
Alumni Clubs in Kentucky met on the same night and the President spoke
to each by video tape where he spelled out the University's position on
the issues. There was also a team of faculty and staff from UK at each
location. He said that the event was a great success. His impression
was that the governance issue on the Community Colleges is going to be
ameliorated and softened and not be something the Council will want to
pursue in recommending a second board. The Dental School issue was the
thorniest of all. The President feels both dental schools should be
kept and both he and President Swain are urging the Council to keep the
schools in operation.

The President concluded by saying that this is a crucial time for
our institution because there are so many things in motion that could be
in the worst interests of the University. He emphasized his concern be

When I talk about the importance of this insti—
tution I mean not only to those people who are
privileged to participate in the life of this
institution but also to those countless thousands
of other Kentuckians who never set foot on any of


 our campuses, but whose lives have indeed been
touched, whether they know it or not, and whose
fortunes have been improved, whether they know it
or not, by the programs and by the people of this

The senators applauded President Singletary and on behalf of the Senate, Chairman
Canon thanked him.

Chairman Canon recognized Professor Wilbur Frye who read the following Resolution
on Professor Robert N. Bostrom, Chairman of the University Senate Council, l984-85.

"Whereas, Professor Robert N. Bostrom served as Chairman of the
Senate Council of the University of Kentucky during l984—85 and, in that
capacity, presided over the meetings of the University Senate and
University Senate Council and represented the faculty in the policy—
making process with the administration of the University, this
resolution is to commend him for his dedication, skillful leadership,
and good humor in carrying out those responsibilities.

In presiding over the Senate, Professor Bostrom used his booming
voice and his skill in parliamentary procedure to enhance his authority
figure. After spurning offers of a microphone, he would raise his voice
a few decibels and call the meeting to order. He was so confident that
everyone could hear him that he did not feel compelled to say, 'Please
hold up your hand if you can't hear me.‘ The volume of his voice has
also been an asset throughout his tenure as a member, Vice-chairman, and
Chairman of the Senate Council, where the floor and attention of fellow
members are granted to the loudest member. His superior knowledge of
parliamentary procedure was shown by the fact that he was the only
Chairman of the Senate Council who knew what to do with Professor Ivey's
persistent and insistent 'calls for the question.‘

Professor Bostrom ably represented the Senate and Senate Council at
meetings with the administration and policy makers of the University.
It was at one such meeting that he came to realize that work needs yet
to be done in his chosen field, communications, when a reporter chose to
ignore everything that he said about the merger of the University of
Kentucky and the University of Louisville except that it would be like
”mixing Maker's Mark and Fresca."

One of the many good things that could be said about Professor
Bostrom's tenure as chairman of the Senate Council is that it was fun to
serve with him.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the University Senate, at its
meeting on September 9, l985, commends Professor Robert Bostrom for a
job well done and expresses its appreciation for his dedicated service
to the Senate Council and the University of Kentucky. Bob, we extend to
you our sincere best wishes.

Professor Frye requested that the Resolution be made a part of these minutes and
Professor Bostrom was given a round of applause.


 The Chairman introduced the officers of the Senate: Randall w. Dahl, Secretary
and University Registrar; Martha Sutton, Recording Secretary; Professor Emeritus
Gifford Blyton, Parliamentarian; Celinda Todd, Administrative Assistant to the Senate
Council; Mary Mayhew and Frankie Garrison, Sergeants at Arms for the University
Senate l985-86 year. The Chairman also introduced the Senate Council members for the
l985-86 year who are: Wilbur Frye, agronomy; Don Hochstrasser, allied health; Robert
Altenkirch, mechanical engineering; Enid Maldhart, communications; Ward Crowe,
veterinary science; Jesse Neil, physics; Douglas Rees, medicine; and William Lyons,
political science. The two student members are Kathleen Ashcraft and Todd Osborne.
Ex officio members are: Professors Robert Bostrom, retired Chairman of the Senate
Council; Connie Wilson, social work and James Kemp, animal sciences, Board of
Trustees members; and John Cain, President Student Government. The new members of
the Senate were asked to stand.

The Chairs for the Senate Committees for the l985—86 academic year are Professors
Martin McMahon, Rules and Elections; Trudi Bellardo, Library; Loys Mather, Admissions
and Academic Standards; Stanley Brunn, Academic Planning and Priorities; William
Lyons, Academic Programs; Paul Eakin, Academic Organization and Structure; Brinton
Milward, Research; Fletcher Gabbard, Academic Facilities, and Joseph Krislov,
Institutional Finances and Resources Allocation. This year's ombudsman is Charles

Chairman Canon recognized Professor Charles Ellinger for the Academic Ombudsman's
Report for l984-85. Professor Ellinger's remarks follow:

”Once again I come before you to present the annual report of the

Office of the Academic Ombudsman. I have had the privilege of serving
in this office for the past two years. I was most pleased to have been
selected to have served for a second year. The opportunities that are
presented to the Academic Ombudsman are far too numerous to mention. My
experiences in that office are a very valuable part of my experiences at
this University. I will cherish them forever.

I would certainly like to thank those who selected me to serve the
second year. There is no doubt in my mind that you are a better
Ombudsman the second year of a term than you are the first. It is only
natural that you learn from your previous experiences.

Once again I would like to commend the faculty overall of this
University as being extremely available and cooperative. I also would
like to once again express my sincere feelings of the overall sincerity
that most of the students have on this campus particularly those that
come to our office. The office serves, as you are aware, as a neutral
ground. There are some people who view this office as either pro—
student or pro—faculty. It was certainly my intention that the office
remain neutral at all times. Hopefully, most of the people that came to
our office or who were exposed to our office felt that we were able to
achieve that.

I would like at this time to introduce Ms. Frankie Garrison. Ms.
Garrison has been with the office for approximately ten years. Those of

you that have dealt with the office know that she is very valuable to
the continuity of this office. She also adds experience and advice for


 the Ombudsman. She has a superb knowiedge of the ruies of the Univer—
sity which is not oniy beneficiai to the Ombudsman but to the students
as weii. Ms. Garrison wi11 present at this time the report of the
office concerning the type of visits that occurred this past academic







Dissatisfaction Over Grades

Teaching Practices and
Personaiity Confiicts




Repeat Option


Common Exams

Muitipie Contact Cases 107 535

Short Cases (Referrals, Information,


Aiiied Heaith
Arts and Sciences
Business & Eonomics
Fine Arts
Graduate School
Home Economics
Library and Information Science
Sociai Work








Graduate Students
Professional Students
Donovan Scholars






I would also like to take the opportunity to thank many of the
other individuals who have served with me in various capacities. I
would like to say a special thanks to Professor Bill Fortune who has
served as the hearing officer of the Appeals Board. Bill and I have had
numerous contacts and I found him to be extremely willing and able to
assist me in any manner that he could.

Also, I would like to thank Bob Bostrom and Cindy Todd of the
Student Council office. They were always readily available when I
needed their assistance.

I would like to thank Paul Sears, George Dexter, Jean Pival, Mike
Brooks and Bill Lacy for being available for consultations. I would
also like to say a special thanks to those who participated in the
Symposium for Cheating and Plagerism that our office sponsored. Also a
very special thanks to the volunteer ad hoc committee that was formed
after that symposium and is the group that is responsible for the only
recommendation that I am going to make this year.

I would like to thank Dr. Gallaher, Chancellor of the Lexington
Campus and Dr. Bosomworth, Chancellor of the Medical Center. Both of
these individuals were always supportive and readily available whenever
I needed their advice and/or consultation.

Finally, another special thanks to Dr. Singletary who continues to
support this office. It is extremely important, in my viewpoint, that
the President of the University be supportive of this office if in fact
the office is going to be of any value to the University.


 I wouId now Tike to take this opportunity to discuss with you my
onIy recommendation that I am proposing for this coming year. I men-
tioned earIier that this office sponsored a symposium on cheating and
pIagerism. Many of you were in attendance at this symposium. We had
appproximateTy 70 individuaIs - students, facuIty and administrators
that took part in this symposium. After the symposium was compTeted, a
vqunteer group of 15 individuaIs met six times. These meetings con—
tinued throughout the summer months. Those individuaIs that served on
this committee were:

Don Sands - Vice—ChanceIIor, Academic Affairs

BiTI Fortune - Hearing Officer, University AppeaIs
Gay EIste — LegaI CounciI, UK

Joe Burch - Dean of Students

Jean PivaI - Former Ombudsman

Mike Brooks — Former Ombudsman

BiII Lacy - Former Ombudsman

Barbara Mabry - Advisor, CoIIege of Arts and Sciences
John Cain - President, UK Student Body

Margey McQuiIkin — Assistant Registrar

Jon Piecoro - FacuIty, CoIIege of Pharmacy

Mark Summers — FacuIty, Arts and Sciences

David BrowneII - Student

Frankie Garrison - Office of Academic Ombudsman

Chuck EIIinger - Chairman and Immediate Past Academic Ombudsman



- o a o u

I wiII give onIy a synopsis of the recommendations at this time.

The totaI recommendation wiII be given to Brad Canon, Chairman of the
University Senate CounciI, so that he might present the recommendations
to the fuII CounciT.

Brieny in outTine form:

A. Objective of Ad Hoc Committee
I. StreamTine the overaTI process
2. Adopt a poIicy of consistency and fairness
for aIT students.

Responsibiiity of Instructor and Chairman

(New 4.1)

I. Instructor consuIts with the department chairman.

2. They consuTt with dean of coTIege where offense
occurred concerning previous offenses.

3. Minimum penaTty in course - E.

Reporting Academic Offenses

(New 4.8)

T. A1] finaI decisions of guiTt of an academic offense
shaII be reported in writing to the registrar by the
dean of the coIIege in which the offense occurred.


 Responsibility of the Registrar

(New 4.9)

l. Keep a record of final decisions of guilt.

2. Information will be released only with consent of
student, or in response to an inquiry of a dean or
the Academic Ombudsman.

Penalties for Academic Offenses

(New 4.95)

l. Minimum penalty is an E in the course.

2. Repeat option may not Be used for this course.

3. Previous academic offense(s) recorded in
Registrar's Office requires a minimum penalty
of suspension for one semester.

Members of the University, this concludes my report. Once again,
many thanks for allowing me to serve in this role.

The Chairman thanked Professor Ellinger for his report.

Chairman Bradley Canon made the following announcements:

“Professor Ray Betts, the Distinguished Professor in the College of
Arts and Sciences will give the 'Distinguished Professor Lecture' on
Thursday, October 3 at 8:00 p.m. in the Concert Hall in the Center for the
Arts. The title of the lecture is 'Confounding the Line of Separation——The
Culture of the Coast.I

The Senate Council elections are now in progress. The ballot is due
October 4. There are three members to be elected and they will take office
in January.

Forthcoming items on the Senate agenda are the recommendations of
Professor Ellinger regarding cheating and plagarism and the new General
Studies Proposal. The proposal is currently before the Senate Council
after having been approved by the Undergraduate Council and the Senate‘s
Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards. It was circulated to
Senators last spring and discussed informally by the Senate in April. I
have asked Chancellor Gallaher to Took into the financial feasibility of
implementing the recommendation. The Senate Council will consider the
academic implementations of the proposed University Studies revision. We
plan to do this at a meeting on Wednesday, October 2. If you wish to speak
to the Senate Council at that meeting, I would appreciate your letting the
Senate Council Office know in advance and if possible, to have a written
version of the points you want to make so that they can be distributed to
other Council members in advance. If all goes well, the new General
Studies package should come before the Senate at the November meeting.

Another item coming up in the near future is a proposal to revise the
University's absence policy. Currently, the only excusable absence is
being away on University sponsored trips. The Senate Council proposes to
enlarge this by adding illness of the student or serious illness and death
of the student‘s immediate family as excused absences.



The Senate Council has done a few things in relation to the strategic
plan proposed by the Council on Higher Education. We have been busy over
the summer, even if we have not been as busy as President Singletary, in
trying to defend the University. The Senate Council in July responded to
the proposal in the first draft in the CHE strategic plan that the UK's
College of Dentistry be closed. We adopted a resolution which we forwarded
to the Council on Higher Education and to all members thereof in which we
protested that this proposal was included without any discussion of the
quality of the teaching program, without any discussion of the statewide
oral health services offered at either University of Louisville or Uni—
versity of Kentucky and without any discussion about the research performed
at either university's college of dentistry. We urged that if the Council
was dead set on closing a college of dentistry, it should be done in an
impartial manner by an outside board of experts. We went on to argue that
we did not believe that the Council had made a convincing case for there
being only one dental school in the state and that the oral health of the
people of Kentucky rather than protecting the existing practicing dentists
from competition should be the primary concern to enter into such a de-
cision. We did receive a response from Harry Snyder, the Executive
Director of the Council, and from a couple of Council members, largely
acknowledging receipt and indicating they were now planning to employ a
group of experts to recommend which dental school be closed.

Subsequently, on behalf of the Senate Council, I made a statement
before the Council on Higher Education at its Lexington hearing on the
third draft of the strategic plan. The Senate Council did not formally
write the statement I made because we did not have a quorum in town at the

time, but received input from members of the Senate Council who were
around. I briefly reiterated the Senate Council‘s position, not only on
the dental school, but on all the other professional programs and on the
proposals to separate the Medical Center and the Community Colleges from
UK. I applauded the commitment offered in the third draft to make the
University of Kentucky the state‘s comprehensive university and to seek the
resources and put efforts into making its programs nationally renowned.

The bulk of my statement, however, focused on the proposal for
establishment of Centers of Excellence at universities throughout
Kentucky. We made no objection to the concept of Center of Excellence per
se, but it was our belief that the centers proposal had not been well
thought out by the Council on Higher Education and we tried to put some
questions to the Council which we thought they should think through more
fully before finally pursuing Centers of Excellence. One question was,
'How does the proposal for Centers of Excellence tie in with the commitment
to make UK a comprehensive university?‘ Does the fact that some programs
will be in Centers of Excellence mean that other programs will be deem—
phasized? We are fearful that the centers may be the repositories for all
new resources and other programs may stagnate. We also expressed concern
that the strategic plan implied that UK‘s Centers of Excellence would focus
almost exclusively on graduate training. We have no objection to empha-
sizing graduate training, but we are bothered by the implication of
exclusivity. Does this mean that efforts to enhance undergraduate ex—
cellence at UK will be ignored? We protested such an implication. We
stressed that in most disciplines, at least, undergraduate excellence and

graduate excellence were usually highly integrated and you could not really
have one without the other. Finally we were bothered a out the fact there



was no clear discussion of the scope of the Centers of Excellence--what they
would include and what they wouldn't. Could there be a viable Center of
Excellence in engineering if you didn't have a Center of Excellence in
mathematics or physics? Obviously engineering depends heavi— ly on mathematics
and physics. 0n the other hand, if you say there will be a Center of
Excellence and include everything that supports this or that, then it becomes
tough to figure out where to draw the boundaries. In short, we felt the scope
of the Centers of Excellence, how broad or narrow they could be, needed more

Finally, on behalf of the Senate Council I attended a meeting of all
chairs of University Senates (or some equivalent position) in Kentucky. We
met as a group on the morning of August 28 and that afternoon we met with
the Council on Higher Education staff. Senate leaders had some common
ground. One, there was feeling that the Council plan should give faculty a
greater role in developing the academic components of the strategic plan.
The plan as now outlined had no faculty input and perhaps faculty

Second, while recognizing that there is a need for some limits on what
constitutes a core of discipline, there was a fear among all of us that the
Council on Higher Education's proposal to control what is and what is not a
core of discipline, which is a part of the strategic plan, would rigidify
the status quo and make innovation or reaction of changed circumstances
difficult. The strategic plan, as currently written would establish a
certain number of core disciplines, one in which any university could offer
a major, and those and only those that would be core disciplines at all
universities throughout the state. If a discipline were not among the core
disciplines, a university could offer a degree in it only with the approval
of CHE.

We were also fearful of the Council's proposal to consider adopting a
core curriculum in the liberal arts. It would be common to all univer-
sities. There was a strong feeling among the leaders of the faculty
senators that core curriculum issues should be decided at the university
level and not in Frankfort.

In one area, we had no common response. There were mixed feelings
among the faculty leaders around Kentucky on how we should react to the
Centers of Excellence.proposal. Frankly, some university representatives
disliked the proposal absolutely. Others liked the proposal in concept at

On September 20, this group will meet to draw up a written statement
to submit to the Council on Higher Education."

There were no questions from the floor about the Senate Council's response
to the strategic plan.

The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

Randall w. Dahl


”Professor Robert N. Bostrom

Chairman, University Senate Council, 1984—85

Whereas, Professor Robert N. Bostrom served as Chairman of
the Senate Council of the University of Kentucky during 1984—85
and, in that capacity, presided over the meetings of the
University Senate and University Senate Council and represented
the faculty in the policy—making process with the administration
of the University, this resolution is to commend him for his
dedication, skillful leadership, and good humor in carrying out

those responsibilities.

In presiding over the Senate, Professor Bostrom used his

booming voice and his knowledge of parliamentary procedure to
enhance his authority figure. After spurning offers of a
microphone, he would raise his voice a few decibels and call the
meeting to order. He was so confident that everyone could hear
him that he did not feel compelled to say, "Please hold up your
hand if you can't hear me." The volume of his voice has also
been an asset throughout his tenure as a member, V