xt78gt5ffh3s https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt78gt5ffh3s/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1981-04-13  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, April 13, 1981 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 13, 1981 1981 1981-04-13 2020 true xt78gt5ffh3s section xt78gt5ffh3s UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY


April 9, 1981

Members , Unive rs ity Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday, April 13,
1981 at 3:00 p.m. in room CB 106.

University Senate Minutes, March 9, 1981.
Chairman's Remarks.
Ombudsman's Report. Professor Jean Pival.

Action and Discussion Items:


a) Proposed resolution from the University Senate Research
Committee, Susan Belmore, Chairman. (See attached.)

b) Recommendations from the A_d Hoc Committee to Study
the Organization and Committee Structure of the Senate.
(Circulated under date of April 3, 1981). For Discussion


c) Addendum to proposed recommendations to Change USR,
I, 3.1. 3. (See attached)

Elbert W. Ockerman




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, April l3, 198l,
in Room l06 of the Classroom Building.

George Schwert, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Tawny R. Acker, M. I. H. Aleem, James Applegate*, Rusty Ashcraft,
Albert S. Bacdayan, Michael A. Baer*, Harry H. Bailey, Charles E. Barnhart, John R.
Baseheart, James C. Beidleman, Joanne I. Bell*, Jacques Benninga*, John J. Bernardo,
Leslie Bingham, Brack A. Bivins, William H. Blackburn, Jack Blanton, Scott F. Boggess*,
James A. Boling, Robert N. Bostrom, Vickey Bowen, Joseph T. Burch, Michael D. Carpenter*,
W. Merle Carter, Ben Castle, Harry M. Caudill, S. K. Chan, It—Keong Chew, Donald B.
Clapp, D. Kay Clawson, Lewis W. Cochran*, Georgia Collins, Glenn B. Collins, J. Donald
Coonrod, Raymond H. Cox*, Philip H. Crowley*, Leo S. Demski*, George Denemark, David E.
Dent0n*, Philip A. DeSimone*, Alan DeYoung, Louis Diamond, Joseph M. Dougherty, John
Drake, Herbert N. Drennon, Roland Duell, Phillip A. Duncan, Anthony Eardley, Bruce S.
Eastwood, William D. Ehmann*, Roger Eichhorn*, Irving S. Fisher, Paul G. Forand, Walter
C. Foreman, Art Gallaher, Davis Gardner, John H. Garvey, Peter Gillis, Zakkula
Govindorajulu*, George W. Gunther, Hal Haering, Jr., Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hasan,
Virgil W. Hays*, Jack Heath, Raymond R. Hornback, Cathy Howell, Alfred S. L. Hu,

Eugene Huff*, Keith H. Johnson*, Greg Jones, John J. Just*, Richard I. Kermode, Edward
J. Kifer*, Michael J. Kirkhorn, Jane Kotchen, James R. Lang*, Stephen Langston*, Thomas
P. Lewis, Gordon P. Liddle, David Listerman, Carolyn G. Litchfield*, Rey M. Longyear,
Nancy Loomis, Paul Mandelstam*, Tim Mann, Kenneth E. Marino*, James R. Marsden,

William J. Marshall, Emanuel Mason*, William L. Matthews, Sally S. Mattingly*, Marion
E. McKenna*, Martin McMahon, Susan Meers, Ernest Middleton, H. Brinton Milward*, John
M. Mitchell, Denis Newbolt, David S. Newburg, Philip J. Noffsinger, Merrill W. Packer,
Leonard V. Packett, Albert W. Patrick, Jane S. Peters, Deborah E. Powell*, Herbert G.
Reid*, Frank J. Rizzo, Philip W. Roeder, Edith Rowe, Charles Rowell, Wimberly C. Royster,
Robert W. Rudd, Gerardo Saenz*, Holly Schumacher, Eugenie C. Scott, Donald S. Shannon,
Jon M. Shephard*, Hirofumi Shibata, D. Milton Shuffett*, Timothy Sineath, Otis
Singletary*, Harry A. Smith, John T. Smith, Donald Soule, William J. Stober, Edward F.
Stanton*, Earl L. Steele, Marjorie S. Stewart, Anne Stiene-Martin*, Brad Sturgeon,
Joseph V. Swintosky, Lee T. Todd, S. Sidney Ulmer, Mark Vickers, Enid S. Waldhart*,
O'Neal Weeks, Wayne A. Wiegand, Paul A. Willis, J. Robert Wills, Constance P. Wilson*,
Alfred D. Winer, Ralph F. Wiseman*, Cindy Woolum, Patch G. Woolfolk*

The minutes of the regular meeting of March 9, l98l, were approved as circulated
with the correction on page 4, next to the last paragraph Dean Drennon's remarks
should read: ”...the conclusion was that the program as presently organized had no
future and recommended separate departmental status,” rather than “...the recommenda-
tion was that the program had no future.”


Chairman Schwert made the following remarks:

"My remarks are not going to be extensive. Several members
of the Senate Council and a number of other faculty members attended
the hearings of the Committee on Higher Education in Kentucky's
Future, called the Prichard Committee. A number of people wrote
letters to Mr. Prichard expressing their points of view on the issues
that were mentioned there. They were largely suggestions on steps
in improving the quality of educational programs at the various
State supported institutions and finding some rational basis for de-

*Absence explained


 ciding the proper role of these institutions in the higher educan
tion system in this State.

The proposal for today's meeting is to discuss the report of
the ad hoc Committee to Study the Organization and Committee
Structure of the Senate. We are going to defer action until an—
other meeting. Since we have no further scheduled meetings and
because the Graduate Faculty will not meet in April, there will be
a called meeting of the Senate two weeks from tomorrow to act
upon the report of the Conmittee. The particular reason for doing
this rather than letting it hang on until Fall is that Professor
Kemp will be the Chairman of the Senate Council, and he feels
he would be less able to defend the recommendations of this Com-
mittee if he is chairing the meeting. Also, the longer the propo-
sal is delayed the longer it would take to implement it. We
still lack one piece of information which we will have at the
meeting in two weeks. One of the recommendations is that all the
ex officio members will be non—voting members. It is the desire
of the Senate Council to poll the ex officio members to see if
this recommendation is suitable to them since the Senate has been
a tripartite group of faculty, students, and administrative
officers. We will solicit their impression on whether, as non-
voting ex officio members, they could continue to serve the role
they now fill.

I would also remind you to remind your colleagues to vote
for members of the Senate since the election is still in progress.

The new faculty member of the Board of Trustees is also an
old faculty member of the Board of Trustees, Professor Constance

Professor Schwert recognized Professor Jean Pival, Ombudsman, for
her l980-8l Academic Ombudsman Report.

Professor Pival made the following remarks:

”In my opening remarks of this report, the second I have
delivered before this body, I would like to express my apprecia-
tion for the confidence demonstrated by the University faculty,
the Ombudsman Search Comnittee, and President Otis Singletary
in reappointing me for a second term in office. As I suspected,
the experience gained in my first year has made the task easier
the second time around—-n0t less busy, but certainly less stress-
ful and more efficient. Again I wish to thank the people who
have contributed to the functioning of the office: first my
assistant, Frankie Garrison, whose efficiency and good sense
make the daily routine manageable; second, the Senate personnel
who have helped to clarify confusing rules—-Chairman George
Schwert and Cindy Todd; and the Rules Committee Chairman, Bradley
Canon; third, my connection in the President's office, Paul Sears;
fourth, the legal minds to whom I often turned for help, Gay
Elste, Nancy Ray, Kenneth Germaine, and Will Fortune; and last
but not least, my thanks to the long—suffering pair in the
Registrar's office——Ge0rge Dexter and Linda Hensley.


 A number of people have asked me this year why I took this
job for a second term and I think that question deserves an answer.
Other than the bind I put myself into last April when I recommended
to this body that the Academic Ombudsman should be given a two—year
appointment, I re—accepted the post mainly because of three situa-
tions which I had encounted during my first year in office: first
and foremost, the large number of problems stemming from inadequate
training and orientation of foreign teaching assistants; second,
academic rules that permitted some professional programs to drop
students from the University on the basis of a one-semester academic
performance; and, last, the heart~breaking cases I had encountered
due to professional Code of Ethics that lie outside the province of
any appeal through the Student Code and that do not provide internally
for students' rights of due process.

It has been personally gratifying, that in my second year I
have been able to influence some change or some possibility of
change in these areas. 0n the first, I have worked with Dr. Willis
Griffin, Director of the Office for International Students, and Mr.
Vincent Yeh, a Teaching Assistant and a representative from Student
Government. With the aide of a questionnaire sent to relevant depart-
ments and a study of orientation programs in existence at other insti-
tutions, we drew together a proposal which has the support of the
Associate Graduate Dean and the Academic Vice President and which is
now being considered for implementation. Our hope is that this pro-
gram could result in improved teaching conditions for undergraduate
students and could aid in alleviating some of the stress and frustra-
tion experiences by the foreign teaching assistants themselves,
thereby improving their chances to obtain graduate degrees.

As to the second problem, following my suggestion to the rele—
vant professional programs, a revision of the rules was submitted to
the Senate Council. Effective September, l980, students in those
programs can be dropped from a college program, but retain student
status in the University.

The third problem is still unresolved. I have met with the
Student Code Revision sub—committee that is working on a new rule
involving the professional Codes of Ethics. At that time, I expressed
my concern about the lack of due process afforded students and
pledged support of a rule that would require professional schools
to develop procedures for the prosecution and appeal of violations of
ethical codes. I urge careful and thoughtful consideration of this
matter when it comes before this body.

In addition to these projects, I attended Freshman Weekend,
talked to new faculty and teaching assistants, met with student
groups, spoke for classes and seminars, and granted at least a
dozen interviews to various University publications-—all activities
that go with the Ombudsman's territory.

As time consuming as some of these activities have been, the
student complaints and problems that come daily to the Academic
Ombudsman's office have taken most of my time and attention. Since
my report to you in April of last year the office has handled 253



mu1tip1e contact cases and 278 sing1e contacts that required on1y
information, referra1, or brief advice. But the tota1 531 be1ies
the rea1 extent of the Ombudsman's activities. In a random check
of the number of contacts made in about 10% of the 531 cases cited
above, we found an average of 5 persona1 interviews or te1eph0ne
conversations had been made.

Arts and Sciences accounted for the highest number of com-
p1aints, 109; Business and Economics, 30; Education, 20; Engineer—
ing, 15; Pharmacy, 9; Fine Arts, 8; Home Economics, 5; Architecture,
4; A11ied Hea1th, Medicine, and Nursing with 3 each; Agricu1ture, 2;
and 1 each from Dentistry and Law. In addition, there were 3 from
Graduate Schoo1, 2 from Experientia1 Education, and 1 each from
Library Science and Socia1 Professions. As is usua1, the highest
percentage invo1ved comp1aints about grades, but 52 were comp1aints
about teaching practices, and 19 against inadequate advising. Cheat—
ing and p1agiarism numbered 19, with 2 suspensions invo1ved. A
number centered around various admission prob1ems and conf1icts with
common examination schedu1es, 3 invo1ved discrimination.

Of the students who made the comp1aints 28 were freshmen, 48
sophomores, 70 seniors, 39 graduate students. Facu1ty participants
numbered 22 part-time instructors, 26 teaching assistants, 119 fu11—
time facu1ty. Two cases were referred to the Appea1s Board; a11
others were reso1ved at the departmenta1 or co11ege 1eve1.

The significance of the tota1 number of cases hand1ed by the
office for 1980-81 becomes acute1y apparent when we compare the
figure with those of past years. For the 1971—72 period, Ombuds—
man Scarborough reported 84 mu1tip1e contact cases with an overa11
contact tota1 of 204. The years from 1972 to the present have
shown a steady year1y increase in both mu1tip1e and sing1e contact
cases; 243/415 tota1s of my first year in office-~1979—80; 253/531
in 1980—81. These figures show about a 300% increase in the cases
that require a minimum of one hour in so1ving; yet the staff of the
Ombudsman's office has remained the same-—a fu11—time office
assistant and a ha1f—time Ombudsman. I reiterate my 1ast year's
recommendation that the Academic Ombudsman be given a fu11-time
appointment. Martyrs are not born every day.

But why this dramatic increase in student prob1ems? Certain1y
one reason is that students have better know1edge of the service;
and another is that the office has gained a favorab1e reputation
over the years. In my opinion, however, there are broader causes
that un1ess corrected wi11 continue to acce1erate the number of
student comp1aints. Thus, instead of the usua1, specific recommenda—
tions made by the Ombudsman, I wou1d 1ike to turn to broader issues
that are affecting who1e segments of the University and that are
ref1ected in the student frustration and despair I have seen in the

These troub1e areas are not my discovery; for the 1ast few
years, I have heard one or more of them discussed wherever facu1ty
congregate. But usua11y, the debates have centered around facu1ty
concerns——the creation or surviva1 of academic programs, the p1ace



of the University among the benchmark institutions, faculty morale,
loss of research facilities. I wish to speak of these areas in
terms of our student body, because I believe that whatever adverse—
ly affects the University and its faculty inevitably hurts the
students. Therefore, the hypotheses that I present here about the
causes of increased student complaints are in keeping with the
function of the Office of the Academic Ombudsman.

One trouble area has resulted from the increasing emphasis
over the last ten years on scholarship and research. During that
time, teaching and academic advising were not as overtly rewarded
as research; many outstanding teachers were not tenured because
they failed to meet publication criteria. If we believe that a
University has a primary obligation to produce graduates who have
had superior education, we must find ways to reward faculty who
are primarily committed to the excellence of our human products.

Closely related to this first problem area is one that stems
from increased use of teaching assistants and part-time instructors
in lower division courses——people who are paid and treated as
second-class faculty and who are given little encouragement or
incentive to develop pride in the University as a center for learn—
ing. The high percentage of student complaints about part—time
faculty attests to the inherent problems here.

A third area that has contributed to increased student unrest
is the erosion of academic programs and the loss of high quality
faculty due to shrinking funds. The resultant low morale of
faculty, the ever-widening gap in the student-teacher ratio, the

decrease in the number of courses being offered each semester,
have all taken their toll on the academic relationships between
teachers and students. Students feel constantly more isolated
from their teachers and the learning process; they find increas-
ingly less satisfaction from academic administrators and advisors
who are exhausted and demoralized by the overwhelming problems

of dealing with too few resources and too many students.

Another problem area directly related to the preceding one
and further aggravated by the shrinking job market is the per-
sonal tension created by professional concerns peculiar to the
academic world-—the stress attendant to worries about tenure and
promotion; the general paranoia about the uses of student eval-
uation in making tenure and merit decisions. This year we had a
high percentage of complaints against teachers agonizing through
their tenure year--not because these teachers had discussed their
concerns with their students--but because they suffered emotional
states that interfered with their ability to function effectively
in the classroom. On several occasions, I found that such
faculty needed more help from the Ombudsman than did their stu-
dents. In fact, several colleagues have suggested the need for
a faculty Ombudsman and half facetiously, I have suggested that
some counseling provision be provided to help people through that
stressful year--a kind of Tenure Anonymous.



In my investigation of cases, I have encountered again and
again that many faculty hold an almost adversary attitude toward
their students-—an attitude, I think, nourished by the questionable
ways that student evaluations are used in determining merit and
promotion. As a teacher, I have always supported the practice of
student evaluation of teaching, but I supported its original purpose
to help improve teaching—-allowing students to communicate strengths
and weaknesses directly to the person involved in the teaching pro-
cess. Instead, evaluations have become a divisive factor--not only
in the manner described above, but also between faculty members.
Students are adversaries, colleagues are competitors, administra-
tors are hanging judges. Faculty members have told me that in their
departments they never see the original student document, but are
given numerical averages. How can this practice contribute to im—
proved teaching? I feel that this problem has become so serious
that I recommend that the Senate Council establish an Ad Hoc com—
mittee to study the student evaluation procedures on campus in the
hope of restoring this valuable service to its proper function.

In light of all these problems, I make only one major recom-
mendation to this body: that as Senators you turn your attention
next year to the broad issues I have outlined here, and that we
as a faculty do what we must to convince the people of Kentucky
that when a University faculty is afflicted with low morale and in-
sufficient resources, it cannot offer quality education to their
children. And if the right of quality education is violated, what
good is the right to appeal others?

Professor Pival was given an enthusiastic applause.

The Chairman recognized Professor James Kemp for a motion from the Senate
Council. Professor Kemp said that the item had not been circulated prior to the
meeting but that the Senate Council has approved the Resolution from the University
Senate Research Committee endorsing a statement by the National Academy of
Sciences. Professor Susan Belmore was chairman of the committee.

Chairman Schwert said that the Senate would act legally upon it at the next‘
meeting. He pointed out that the statement which Professor Belmore's committee
recommended was one generated by the National Academy of Sciences and has been
endorsed by a number of other institutions.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Belmore said that
the University had received a one—year extension for implementation. She felt it was
important to note that should the Senate pass the resolution it should not be
construed as lack of cooperation with the system the University now uses. If the
Resolution passed, copies would be sent to the State Congressional Leaders and a
copy to President Singletary as a symbolic gesture. There was no further discussion
of the proposal.

Chairman Schwert again recognized Professor James Kemp who presented the
recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee to Study the Organization and Committee
Structure of the Senate. The recommendations were for discussion only.



Professor Kemp presented the Proposal as follows:

"The other members of this committee are Professors Lyle Back,
Engineering; Don Sands, Arts and Sciences; Bob Ogletree, Education;
Doug Rees, College of Medicine; Andy Grimes, Business and Economics;
Mike Adelstein, Arts and Sciences; and Willard Dupree, Student Asso-
ciation. As the report points out, the work of this committee is
an outgrowth of the thinking of several members of the faculty and
notably of Malcolm Jewell who wrote a long letter to the Senate
Council about a year ago suggesting it was time for a change.
Malcolm is an authority on that because he was the principal person
in the comnittee that brought about the present rule the Senate
adopted about l973. After observations over the years, it is the
thinking of some that changes would make the committee structure
more efficient and more workable. The committee has come up with
the recommendations which we are giving you today. We discussed
the size of the Senate, and a lot of people think it's too big.

We discussed the committee structure, and we interviewed several
people who are committee chairmen and others who think some commit-
tees are not necessary. Those and some other changes are being
recommended. We will go over them one by one and if you have any
comments or questions, we will accept them and discuss them. If
you want further input, we would appreciate your sending those
comments to us in writing.

Item one is the reduction in the number of faculty Senators
in changing the membership to 85 from l60.”

In the discussion which followed Professor Gesund said that he had been in the
Senate when it was larger than it is now, and he wasn't sure that it was unworkable.
He felt the Senate should be composed of a number of people who had been in the
Senate before for stability and continuity and have new people to get new ideas
and new blood. He said that he would like for the commmittee to check to see how
many Senators were in their second terms as opposed to those in their first term.

He thought if less than half were there for the first time there was a danger of
excluding new members, and he didn't want to see new members excluded. He added that
he would prefer having the proposal put off until Fall. Professor Thrailkill was in
agreement and said that the principle he would like to apply was: “If it ain't broke,
don't fix it.” He wanted to know what the problem was. Professor Kemp responded
that by reducing the membership from l60 to 85, it would be releasing 75 people to

go about doing the work they were paid to do. The committee felt if the people
elected took it seriously, they would have a higher percentage of Senators attending
the meetings.

Dean Sands said that he had suggested 40, but the committee talked him out of
that. First, it was easier to work out proper representation with 85 and second,
it would be very difficlt to decrease the student number below l5. If the students
were only going to be cut to l5, then the faculty shouldn't be cut that much.
Professor Gesund felt the efficiency would not be increased because some 75 or 80
faculty members were released to go on about their business. He thought the only
thing gained would be having people go home. Professor Thrailkill felt there was an
underlining assumption that if the Senate had a smaller membership more would be
attending the meetings. Professor Kemp said that if a Senator attended more meetings
he or she would know more about what was going on rather than if one attended an
occasional meeting.



Professor Canon said that he didn't think it was a question of the Senate not
being able to function under its present membership but a question of the Senate
being able to do the same thing with a reduced number. Under the present membership
everybody and his brother can become a Senator. Consequently, being a Senator is
not taken very seriously. If the number were reduced to 85, hopefully it would
enhance the prestige of being a Senator and a smaller body could do the same thing.
Professor Kemp said if the number of faculty were reduced then it would be logical
to reduce the number of students. The suggested number of students was l5. Student
Senator Carmichael said that with the reduction to l5, three colleges would not have
a representative. It appeared to him that the University Senate was defeating its
purpose by not having a student from each college on the University Senate. Professor
Kemp responded that the committee in discussing the student number looked at the entire
picture and if the administrators became non—voting, then the faculty would be re~
duced considerably more percentage—wise than the students.

Professor Ivey asked all student representatives to raise their hands. There were
very few at the meeting. He said, “That ends that argument.” He asked for a show of
hands of the faculty serving a second term and those who were new. The number was about
even. He felt that argument was also settled.

Professor Kemp moved to item three which was the change of ex officio members from
voting to non—voting status. He said that before action was taken the committee would
get the results from Chairman Schwert's questionnaire. There was no comment from the
Senate on item three.

In item four, concerning the change of quorum, Professor Kemp said that it would
be necessary to change quorum, if the number of Senators were reduced. The comnittee
suggested 40% of the voting members. There was no discussion.

Item five concerned change in officers, terms of officers, election dates of
officers and duties of officers of the Senate Council. At the present time there is
a Chairman of the Senate Council and Chairman—elect and Secretary. The new proposal
deals with a change in the name of one of the officers, a change in the time of
election, and when he or she would take office and automatic possession to the
Chairmanship. The committee is suggesting a Chairman and a Chairman—elect. The
Chairman-elect shall be elected in April and shall hold office from May l6 to May l5
of the following year. There was no comment on item five.

Item six was a footnote to clarify the situation that might arise when a Chairman
or Chairman—elect continues to serve on the Senate Council as an elected officer
although that individual's term as a member of the Senate may have expired. Officers
of the Senate Council will remain members of the Senate Council for the duration of
their terms of office even if their terms as Senators may have expired. In this
eventuality, they will not be counted as part of their academic units in the election
of members to the Senate or to the Senate Council, thereby expanding the normal size
of both those bodies.

Item seven concerned change in membership of committees to allow for up to one—half
of the members to be selected from outside the Senate. The present Senate Rules re—
quire that each elected member of the Senate be a member of a committee. The rationale
for this change is that by making a greater number of faculty, students, and adminis—
trators eligible for Senate committees, it is felt that the committees will be
strengthened. Future members can be selected because of their special knowledge, concern,
or interest instead of being placed on committees merely because they are elected to the



Senate. The ruling change also allows the Senate to utilize the talents of younger
faculty members, relatively few of whom have been Senate members in the past.

Professor Jewell said that this section and the section on the number of committees
were probably the most important. He said that he did not do any work on the
committee but his experience in serving as Chairman of the Senate Council he found it
difficult to get the interest of the faculty to serve on a committee. Many of the mem-
bers simply did not attend meetings. He felt that the number of committees should be
scaled down. Professor Schwert said that some of the business this year had been done
by ad hoc committees and no one declined to serve when asked.

Item eight concerned annual faculty survey to identify issues for committee study.
It was recommended that the Senate Council survey the entire faculty in the Spring of
each year to identify present issues before the University that might be studied by the
Senate and committees. Professor Kemp said that the Senate Council, however, reserved
the right to screen these because what might be pressing to one faculty member might
not be a pressing issue. The Senate Council might also identify issues.

Item nine was the reduction in the number of Senate Committees. Professor Kemp
said that the Committee probably did more work on this section than any other. The
Committee suggested the elimination of six standing committees. It did not mean those
topics would not be looked at, but simply meant the work could be done by other com—
mittees or by ad hoc committees. There were no comments on this item.

Item ten concerned the removal of the responsibility for computer facilities from
the Committee on Academic Facilities. Professor Kemp added that this was because there
was an administrative committee that deals with computers and the computer program.

By leaving the responsibility in the present committee, there was duplication. Dean
Ockerman commented that perhaps the Committee had good rationale in relation to the
organization and structure of the Senate, but in his view there was not an area in

the institution where there was more deficiency than in computer resources from both
the administration and perhaps the faculty standpoint. He would hate for the Senate

to lose the focus upon that need and felt the Committee should deal with it. Professor
Kemp said that the Committee had not had any input for the last few years and if it
were not functioning, why have it.

Professor Thrailkill asked, ”If the Senate were reduced, would each member be on
a committee?” Professor Kemp answered, ”Not necessarily.” Professor Grimes said that
when the Committee discussed eliminating some of the committees he was distressed because
it seemed to him they were doing something wrong in doing away with committees who would
have an input. He hoped the Senate didn't get the impression that there were no prob-
lems. It was the existing machinery wasn't working and dealing with those problems. He
felt the ad hoc comnittees would have the energy and zest with what they were doing to
deal with some of the problems.

There were no questions or comments on Item eleven which was the clarification of
the role of ad hoc committeess. Item twelve was the change in the appointment process
of the Undergraduate Council as a result of abolishment of the General Studies Committee.
Professor Kemp said that twelve was necessary if the General Studies Committee were
eliminated, because the work of the General Studies Committee was generally being done
by the Undergraduate Council. What the Committee was suggesting was that the Senate
Council appoint one member to the Undergraduate Council to keep a liaison between the
Undergraduate Council and the Senate Council. There were no comments.

Item thirteen concerned adding the following at the end of Section I, 3.l2, Senate


 Council Composition: “Any member who misses three (3) regular or called meetings of the
Council per year without explanation acceptable to the majority of the other members
shall be purged and be replaced by the person receiving the next highest number of votes
in the last Council election.“ Professor Kemp said that in order to make a rule for

the Senate Council comparable to the one for the Senate in regar