xt7b2r3nzz9j https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7b2r3nzz9j/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1973-03-12  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, March 12, 1973 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 12, 1973 1973 1973-03-12 2020 true xt7b2r3nzz9j section xt7b2r3nzz9j   


The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 12,
1973, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Adelstein presided. Members
absent: Staley F. Adams*, Lawrence A. Allen, James R. Barclay*, Charles E. Barnhart,
Robert P. Belin*, Thomas G. Berry*, Juris I. Berzins*, Norman F. Billups*, Harry M.
Bohannan*, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Robert N. Bostrom, Louis L. Boyarsky, Garnett L.
Bradford, Sally Brown, Herbert Bruce*, Lowell P. Bush*, Ralph S. Carpenter,

Richard A. Chapman, Alfred L. Crabb, Larry N. Craft*, Glenwood L. Creech, James E.
Criswell*, William H. Dennen*, George A. Digenis*, R. Lewis Donohew*, Anthony Eardley,
William W. Ecton*, Jane M. Emanuel*, Robert 0. Evans*, Lawrence E. Forgy, James E.
Funk*, George H. Gadbois*, Eugene Gallagher*, Jess L. Gardner*, Richard E. Gift?
Jack B. Hall, Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hasan*, Maurice A. Hatch*, Charles F. Haywood?
James W. Herron*, Eugene Huff? Raymon D. Johnson*, Joseph R. Jones, John J. Just*,
Fred E. Justus*, James B. Kincheloe, Robert G. Lawson, Donald C. Leigh*, Thomas J.
Leonard, Albert S. Levy, Donald L. Madden*, John L. Madden, Maurice K. Marshall*,
Leslie L. Martin*, David Mattingly, Ernest P. McCutcheon, Michael P. McQuillen*,
Thomas P. Mullaney, Jacqueline A. Noonan, James R. 0gletree*, Brenda Oldfield,

Paul F. Parker*, Bobby C. Pass, J. W. Patterson*, Bertram Peretzf N. J. Pisacano,
Virginia Rogers*, Gerald I. Roth*, Arthur W. Rudnick*, John S. Scarborough*,

D. Milton Shuffett*, Otis A. Singletary*, Robert H. Spedding*, Alan Stein*, John B.
Stephenson, Dennis Stuckey*, Lawrence X. Tarpey*, Nancy Totten,

Jacinto J. Vazquez*, M. Stanley Wall, Daniel L. Weiss*, David R. Wekstein, Scott
Wendelsdorf, Cornelia Wilbur*, Paul A. Willis, Miroslava B. Winer*, William W.
Winternitz*, Ernest F. Witte*, Donald J. Wood, Fred Zechman*, Leon Zolondek*,

Lenore Wagner, A. H. Peter Skelland*, Harold Leggett.

The minutes of February 12, 1973 were accepted as circulated.

Dr. Adelstein reminded the Senate that at its last meeting the Senate
approved a resolution on Dr. Flickinger, former Chairman of the Senate Council and
University Senate; that a letter of thanks had been received from Dr. Flickinger
and he read the following excerpt from that letter:

". . .Please convey to the Senate my most sincere appreciation for the
resolution and for the sentiments contained therein. I have always found
it a real pleasure to work with the students and faculty of the University. . ."

On behalf of the Senate Council, Mr. Howell Hopson, Secretary of the Council,
presented a motion to change the implementation date concerning acceptance of D
grades, which the Senate had acted on at its meeting of February 12, 1973, from
the Fall Semester, 1973 to the Spring Semester, 1973. Without debate the Senate
approved this motion.

Chairman Adelstein called on Dr. Malcolm Jewell, Chairman of the ad_hgg
Committee on the Status and Functions of the Senate, to present the Report and
handle the discussion to follow. Dr. Jewell made the following remarks con—
cerning the Report:

This is a report of an ad hog committee appointed at the beginning
of the fall. The names of the committee members were not in the document
sent out to you, and if some of you never heard who they were, or forgot,
I shall list them now: Jesse Harris, Stephen Diachun, J. R. Ogletree,

*Absence explained











Minutes of the University Senate, March 12, 1973 — cont

George W. Schwert, James Wells, Charles Haywood, William K. Plucknett,
William L. Matthews, Jr.; three ex officio members from the adminis—
tration: Lewis W. Cochran, John Stephenson, and Peter Bosomworth;

and two students: Raymond Hill and Graham Browning.

Dr. Flickinger sat with us in our meetings in the fall semester
and Dr. Adelstein more recently. About two—thirds of the members of
the Committee are here, I think, and if I get into trouble, I am going
to call on them for assistance, ideas, answers to questions, etc. I
am not going to spend very much time introducing this. Just say two
or three words about it, and then I think the logical thing to do is
to take this up section by section to see if people have questions,
comments, etc.

This is the report that we made to the Senate Council, and which
the Senate Council has sent to you. It is not the report of the
Senate Council, which will be forthcoming for the next meeting. As
I understand it, the Senate Council will make its proposal regarding
this report, with whatever changes it wants to suggest in it. But
the Committee does appreciate the Council's willingness and/or
eagerness to make our report available to you in its original unamended,
unexpurgated form.

It was a committee which spent a great deal of time on this. We
had a number of evening meetings, and we finally had two all—day
meetings, one during the post—Christmas vacation, and hammered out this
result. The various types of typing and the typographical errors,
result from the fact that the Council, in the interest of speed and
economy, simply took the original report that I had used to circulate
to our committee for their approval of the final draft, and sent it on
to you to save a week or two.

There is one substantive change in the report, which is mentioned
in the second paragraph of the cover memorandum. I met with the Senate
Council following this and one of their strongest concerns had to do
with the existing Committee on Privilege and Tenure. They felt that
instead of being a standing committee of the Senate, it should retain
its present status as an advisory committee —— that is, appointed by
the President on the recommendation of the Senate Council. I polled
our committee and we are agreeable to this change; so the only change
in our report as far as our sentiments are concerned, 23: revisions, is
that we would keep the present Privilege and Tenure Committee of the
Senate unchanged as the only Senate Advisory Committee that would exist
in the future. All other committees which are now Senate Advisory

Committees, would either be Senate committees or administrative committees.

We were given a set of very specific charges by the Senate Council
and then they gave us the charge of studying the functions and purposes
of the Senate. I started out thinking that in a few weeks we could
take care of these fairly simple problems and report back. The more

we talked about the functions and purposes of the Senate —— the broader
our views went, the broader our aims went -— the more we became
concerned of what we felt —— we polled the membership and got a little

feedback —- was a growing concern that the Senate was not doing as good



3 )

 '5?" >


Minutes of the University Senate, March 12, 1973 — cont 3522

a job as it ought to; that it was not getting the attention it

ought to, the priority it ought to,to give to the most important
topics facing the University. And we reached the conclusion, not
that the functions and purposes should be changed, but that some—
thing should be done to the organizational structure of the Senate
in order to make it more possible for us to give more careful con-
sideration and higher priority to the higher problems that are
facing the University in the years ahead and to see if we could find
a way of having the Senate not get bogged down so much in what many
people consider "trivia". What is "trivia" to some of you is

highly important to others. There is no doubt that we have different
interests. We did feel that a number of members of the Senate felt
there ought to be something done to make the Senate a more important
body. This is not the first time that this feeling has existed in
the University. A number of steps have been taken through the years
to do that. The Senate Council was one step in the direction of
trying to take away from the Senate some of the more routine matters
that used to concern it. And some of you can remember when we dealt
with a lot more trivial questions.

So this is the main thrust and focus of the whole approach —- to
try to focus more attention on some of the things that we feel are
most important to us as the Senate's functions; and then to make
some changes in the structure of the Senate; to re—focus the time
of Senators; their resources —— particularly the resources of time,
energy, effort —- to have these directed toward these thrusts. So
the major aspect of this reorganization really is that of a slight
reduction in the size of the Senate and an attempt to build a
stronger, more continuing body of Senate committees to deal with
much of the work of the Senate -- continuing committees that will
have continuing life and continuing responsibilities.

Dr. Jewell stated the first recommendation was that the Senate give greater
attention to the establishment of policies regarding significant academic questions;
that it be the continuing responsibility, not only of the Senate Council, but
of the standing committees which are proposed, to initiate studies and make
recommendations on these policies, so that each of the committees will be charged
with continuing oversight and review; and that the Senate Council develop
and distribute a booklet, comparable to the Senate Rules and probably in
looseleaf form, which would deal with the academic policies of the University,
as distinct from the Rules of the University Senate and the Governing Regulations.




He said that the second recommendation had to do with academic priority;
that the Committee considered various ways and means to involve the Senate in
academic policies and priorities; that while they considered the budget problem,
they rejected any type of proposal under which the Senate should try to set up
a budget committee that would be constantly involved in and consulted on any
budgetary matter because they did not think the Senators had the time to acquire
the kind of expertise needed.

Question was raised from the floor of whether the Committee gave consideration
to the already existing body, the Presidential Planning Commission, which is
charged with the same type of responsibility that the Committee is recommending;
was it to be a co—equalbody; replace that one.










7 EH‘ 3523 Minutes of the University Senate, March 12, 1973 — cont

Dr. Jewell replied that while the Commission was considered an adminis-

trative body set up by the President —— a series of task forces which ”7
j works on continuing and diverse problems —— the Committee was talking €33.
: ‘ ' about responsibility to the Senate —- depending on what recommendations 5
came out of such committees —— recommendations which would have to be made

to the Senate on those aspects of the planning that the Senate had to take
action on; that he did not think they were co—equal bodies but that the Senate
had to, from time to time, make decisions on programs and that at present it

g does so without any clearly established priorities about these programs.

A Senator questioned whether or not the Senate could assume greater respon—
sibility with regard to academic priorities without having some kind of consulting
role with the Administration concerning budget; that it seemed that priority
with the budget should supersede priority with programs.

Dr. Jewell replied that if the Senate authorized a wide number of programs,

the Administration had to pick and choose among them in trying to determine 3‘

what to finance; whereas, if the Senate and its constituency were fairly d”
hardheaded and realistic about its priorities among new programs, and if it g1”

obtained some advice and help from the Administration on what the budgetary

reality was likely to be two years or further hence, it was possible that the

Senate could act more realistically and give the Administration some idea

about its sense of priorities; that, obviously the Administration could not fund

a program unless it had been approved by the Senate; and that rather than the

Senate approving large numbers of programs, very £23 of which could be funded,

it might make more sense to proceed very carefully and not on a first—come

first—served basis.

". . . informal communications,
" at the top of page 5 of the

Question was raised about the phrase
about budgetary plans and projections . . .
proposal under discussion.

Dr. Jewell replied that the Committee was expressing the hope that the

appropriate Senate body would be kept a little better informed in the years

ahead of what is budgetary reality; that while, obviously, the Administration dij‘
did not know beyond two years in the future what the budget would be, the 41!.
appropriate Senate body could have as much information as possible so that

the responsible Senate body would have some idea of whether over a two, four,

. z». six—year period it would be realistic to think of new programs, and, if so, what

E i_bx‘1 kind and how many.





33;. f Question was raised of where a program that presently comes from the
‘%5 colleges gets sanction of the Senate.


Dr. Jewell replied that this function was performed by the Senate Council,
but that the Committee had proposed the establishment of a separate Committee
on Academic Programs which would take over some of the chores now performed
by the Senate Council.

The Chairman of the Committee then spoke to two recommendations which , i
he considered relatively "bland and innocuous" and which the Senate Council fikl‘
might not think required any action by the Senate; but that they were the out— ‘“
growth of a good deal of discussion, namely:







Minutes of the University Senate, March 12, 1973 — cont 3524

1. that there is presently a committee studying the admissions
policy; that the Jewell Committee had been asked to look at questions
which‘might affect the degree of autonomy between the colleges and

the University Senate; that one of those questions involved admissions;
and that the Committee felt there were some problems involving ad—
missions; particularly admission to upper level work, and this was
something to concern the Senate when there is a report to work on;

2. that there is a need for clarifying the policies, in general,
with regard to first degree programs; should there or should there
not be greater uniformity.

He stated that one of the Committee's most sweeping and radical
proposals was that the Senate adopt a policy regarding the University Calendar;
that the Senate not consider the Calendar again and again as it has in the
past; that it be removed from the Senate and Senate Council; and that if the
Senate Council received a Calendar it thought to be in violation of the
established Senate policy, it send it to the floor of the Senate for resolvement.

Suggestion was made from the floor that machinery presently exists to handle
this through the mail ballot and if difficulties arise, the proposed Calendar
can then be brought to the floor of the Senate for deliberation.

A Senator expressed a growing doubt concerning the proposal in that
the Committee was encouraging the Senate, all down the line, to set up
a policy machinery that would solve problems ahead of time; and that he
was very skeptical of the ability of the Senate to formulate policies to
deal with problems that might arise.

Dr. Jewell replied that while he did not think they could formulate policies
to solve all problems, he did think that the formulation of more broad
policies and planning would help.

A Senator questioned whether the phrase at the bottom of page 3 and
continued to the top of page 4, e.g., ". .9. the Senate shall give high
priority to the establishment of policies regarding significant academic
questions of concern to more than a single college . . ." was a departure
from what already exists, or has any implications in the autonomy of the

Dr. Jewell replied that he did not think so; that it was not intended to.

Dr. Jewell then moved to Section II Organization and Structure of the
Senate, Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4. He stated that the Committee was in
essential agreement that the committee responsibilities of the Senate should
be primarily assumed by Senators; that if a faculty member agreed to run,
he should expect to have, as a part of his job aside from attending the
Senate meetings, a continuing responsibility on a Senate committee, the
selection of which he would have some choice in making; and that, normally,
he would remain on the committee for three years. He also pointed out that
if one is not elected to the Senate, he would not suddenly find himself in
September being placed on an ad hoc committee that would require a great
deal of his time and talent.


He stated that the Committee felt there should be established a series












Minutes of the University Senate, March 12, 1973 — cont

of Senate standing committees to handle most of the major work of the

Senate which would take the place of existing advisory and standing committees;
that each of the major issues to come before the Senate would first go to

these committees; and that these committees would also be charged with con—
tinuing responsibility for their areas in coming up with proposals and taking

the initiative to make proposals; but that in order to get a bit more flexibility
in this system and to open the way for non-senators to participate whose talents
and ideas are needed to broaden the base for decision—making, the Committee had
set up within several committees, subcommittees, and that the Committee had
specified that any committee could have subcommittees, the membership of which

could include some senators from the parent committee, and some non—senators.

He stated that the Committee had further provided that even the Chairman of

a committee or the Senate Council might propose that a particular committee
ought to operate with some subcommittees, although it did suggest some specific
subcommittees it thought it should begin with. He reported that the Senate
Council would not, under this proposal, establish gd_hgg_committees, although
it could establish an ad hoc subcommittee, which would report through the
standing committee to the—Senate.

Question was raised of the meaning of "normally" in the last sentence of
item 2., page 8 of the proposal, which reads ". . . Normally a senator will

serve on only one committee. . ."

Dr. Jewell responded that it was possible that a Senator had such interest or
talents that it seemed essential to put him on two committees, or that an
administrator senator, because of his special responsibilities, should logically
serve on two committees because of the input needed, but that it was expected
that faculty senators would never be put on more than one committee.

Question was raised concerning the implications of the statement at the
beginning of item 4. on page 9 that ". . . All proposals for action by the
Senate will be referred by the Senate Council to the appropriate committee
before being acted on by the Senate, . . ."

Dr. Jewell responded that he felt the Senate Council could bring something to
the floor of the Senate by asking for and receiving approval of a waiver of
the Rules.

The Parliamentarian then pointed out that paragraph 4 seemed to preclude any

new business being brought to the floor of the Senate and Dr. Jewell again pointed
out that unless a waiver of the Rule was obtained, the proposal would go to

the appropriate committee before it was reported out, which, in effect, did
preclude any new business being considered; that the Committee was not in favor

of bringing things to the floor of the Senate on the spur of the moment to

be acted upon.

A student senator referred to the statement in item 2, page 8 which reads
". . . Student members who serve more than a onehyear term will continue to
serve on the same committee. . ." and asked why the Committee restricted the
student to the same committee.

Dr. Jewell replied that the faculty senator would have served three years,
the student senator one year; that after three years the faculty senator
might be so tired of that committee that he deserved a break; that it was




Minutes of the University Senate, March 12, 1973 — cont 3526

the Committee's feeling that to the extent a student did serve more than
one term (if he got reelected) the Senate would wish to take advantage

of that student's growing familiarity with a committee and its workings and
would want to keep the student on that committee. He stated further that
the Committee did not consider and vote on the possibility that a student
senator might want to move after one year and he did not know whether the
Committee would be opposed to permitting student senators to shift
committees after one year.

Question was raised of whether sub—committees could establish sub-
committees and the reply was that they could not.

Question was raised of who determines the appropriate committee to
which an item will go, and further in this connection, request was made
for clarification of the sentence in item 3., page 8, which reads ". . .
The Chairman of a committee may establish subcommittees and select their
members on his own authority. . .". If a chairman chooses to decide that
a particular question falls within the jurisdiction of his committee, is
he then free to name a subcommittee that will report to him without con—
sulting anyone else.

Dr. Jewell replied that the subcommittee did not report to the chairman but
to his committee; that a subcommittee of the committee reports to the full
committee and not just to the chairman.

In further pursuit of this question Dr. Jewell stated that a chairman may
establish subcommittees and the Senate Council may establish subcommittees
of a committee; that if the Senate Council decides that a particular problem
needs to be studied by a committee and that committee hasn't considered

that problem, the Senate Council can meet with the chairman of committee X
and state that they are setting up a subcommittee of that committee to deal
with this particular problem. He stated that this is an alternative to
having the Senate Council set up an §d_hgg committee to deal with that
problem, and, in effect, bypass the existing standing committee.

Question was raised Of who is responsible for naming subcommittees.

The Chairman referred the Senator to the bottom of page 8 and the top of
page 9 of the proposal.

A Senator stated his concern with the sort of philosophical pre-subscribed
system which he felt was being proposed for handling business; that he felt
the present system involved the minimum amount of administrative and committee
work; that under the proposal it would appear to be necessary to design
the system ahead of time and design it correctly; and that he was very skeptical
0f anyone's ability to build a system such as this that would really be

Dr. Jewell replied that he felt most problems could fit logically into one

Of the major areas and if they did not, it would be possible to create

a new Senate Committee to deal with any gaps in the system; that the Committee's
Objection to Senate ad hoc committees partly was that they were not drawn
primarily or necessarily from Senators. He stated further that many of the
considerations undertaken by ad hog committees are considerations that
















3527 Minutes of the University Senate, March 12, 1973 — cont

have been undertaken before in the dim past but there is no one on those

committees who was around then; hence, that same problem is wrestled with y
again and five or ten years later, again; and that this is an argument for 4555
getting away from the heavy reliance on ad_h2g committees.

On question from the floor concerning the Area Advisory Committees Dr.
Jewell stated that under the proposed plan the area advisory committees would
remain as they are.

A Senator remarked that the chairman of these committees could be in a
position of considerable power and had the Committee given any consideration to
the terms of the chairmen.

Dr. Jewell replied that the Committee had not; that he assumed they would not

serve more than one term; however, it was possible that the Council might want

to keep a person as chairman a second term if he was reelected to the Senate

for a second term; that it was possible he could stay on as chairman for six

years but that was not likely as it was not normal to place a person as ‘k!”
chairman of a committee the first year he is on that committee. He stated ‘?‘
further that there was nothing in the proposal that said a person had the

right to remain as chairman of a committee; that he only has the right to

remain a member of the committee if he chooses; and that the Senate Council

can appoint a new chairman, either to lighten his work load or because they

think he is not doing a good job.

Concern was raised that committees might become entrenched just as some
members of the United States Senate have become entrenched and was there any
way of controlling this possibility such as abolishing a committee by a simple
majority vote of the Senate.

Dr. Jewell replied that it would continue to be possible to change the Rules
of the University Senate; that these committees would become a part of these
Rules; therefore, it would be possible to abolish committees.


feel the Senate effectively spoke for the faculty of the University, with
the system which is being proposed the Senate would have groups of faculty
members who would become competent in specific areas and would be able to
speak to a subject to the Administration and to Frankfort with knowledge and

A Senator spoke to the proposal and stated that while now he did not 4:!”

A Senator stated that he was still concerned about all proposals for
action by the Senate being referred by the Senate Council to the appropriate
committee before being acted on by the Senate; that there were safeguards
for committees getting their reports on the floor but what about an individual
who is trying to get some kind of action; that it has been stated that the
Senate Council may study deadlines, and, on the other hand, it may not study
deadlines. How does the individual get action on his proposal? He stated
that it seemed to him that it posed a real possibility that proposals could
be kept from ever being acted upon.



Minutes of the University Senate, March 12, 1973 — cont 3528

Dr. Jewell replied that while he, personally, had no objection to placing
fl something in the Rules which would permit a specific vote to remove a proposal
455‘ from committee if that committee had sat on it for a long time, he was reluctant
to bypass the committee system in advance without giving it a chance.

Chairman Adelstein stated that he wished to raise a point that concerned him
about the report which had not been raised. He then called attention to the

following statement in the second paragraph of A. on page 7 ". . .We believe that
one reason why many senators have relatively little interest in the work of the
Senate is that many of them are not involved in committee work, . . ." and he

questioned this hypothesis. His remarks follow:

Are the empty seats here empty because these people are not in—
volved in Senate committees: Are you people who have appeared here

today here because you are on Senate committees; What is the relation-

ship of your commitment to the Senate, and your work on Senate Committees?

And this leads me to the second point. As this report is presented, the
‘P15 main thrust of it is that the Senate will become a more dynamic group
-F‘ ‘ because the Senators will be more interested, active; because they will

' serve on committees. I question whether many of you want to serve on

rare committees and whether this will change your involvement in the ,

tcnate. I also question whether a smaller Senate, confined to the _ijf

proposed 120 individuals, will not operate as a small group even more ’”M
alienated from the rest of the community. If what has been said is
correct that our credentials are not too good with the faculty—at—large,
particularly new faculty members and young faculty members, if they are
not interested in the Senate because they are not involved in it and

don't know people who are involved in it, how much greater will be the

lack of interest and how much greater will be the alienation if they

have no opportunity to serve on committees. I think most of you realize

that the people who are here are mostly of the rank of associate professor

and above. We probably have an average age of about 48; most of us have
been here probably at least six to seven years; only 11 per cent of this
group is composed of people who do not have tenure. If we confine Senate
,. committees only to Senators, do we not lose our major contact with the
455” great majority of faculty members. I think I am asking two questions:

Do you buy the original hypothesis that activity and present involvement
in the Senate depend upon working on committees? Are you willing to run
the risk of cutting yourself off from the main body of the faculty by
confining established committees only to Senators? I ask these questions.








A Senator responded, that as a member of the Committee, he did not think the

main thrust of the report was that it would increase the interest of the Senators
and make them come more; that the real thrust, as he understood it being dis—
cussed in committee, was two things, namely, that the Senate will be more informed
on matters to be brought before it, and that the Senate will be better prepared

to rationalize, on the whole, than any other committee system would guarantee.

He went on further to ask what it was that would make people come to the meetings
and exercise their judgment. Was it only the fact that it is controversial? Or
was it only the fact that it comes up as an original proposition at a singular

Dr. Adelstein responded that his point was if the size of the Senate was diminished
and Senate committees were confined only to Senators, contact was lost with a
tremendous number of faculty members who feel that they are in no way involved









Minutes of the University Senate, March 12, 1973 — cont


in Senate work; that at least under the present system there are faculty
who can serve on the Senate and on Senate committees.

l.- \"

There was response by other Senators from the floor and Dr. Jewell stated that
he would like to see Dr. Adelstein's points resolved by setting up some sort

of structure in the election of the Senate that would guarantee a certain number
of seats to non—tenured faculty. He stated that the Committee was trying to
broaden the base of decision—making so that it is