xt7dfn10s628 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7dfn10s628/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1990-09-10  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 10, 1990 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, September 10, 1990 1990 1990-09-10 2020 true xt7dfn10s628 section xt7dfn10s628 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, SEPTEMBER l0, l990

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
September l0, T990, in Room TTS of the Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Carolyn S. Bratt, Chair of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Barry Applegate, Ronald Atwood*, Carl Baker, Harry V.
Barnard*, Raymond F. Betts, Kelly Breitenstein, Rutheford B Campbell, Jr.,
Bradley C. Canon, Ben W. Carr, Edward A. Carter, Jordan L. Cohen*, Audrey L.
Companion, David S. Durant, Jr.*, Raymond E. Forgue*, William H. Fortune,
Richard W. Furst, Brian Gullette, Marilyn C. Hamann*, J. John Harris, Robert
E. Hemenway, Micki King Hogue*, James G. Hougland, Jr.*, Richard A. Jensen*,
Kim Kells*, Gerald Lemons, Thomas W. Lester*, C. Oran Little, Jill Lowry*,
Peggy Meszaros*, Greg O'Connell*, Barbara Phillips*, Ronald Polly, Thomas R.
Pope*, Robert E. Rhoads, Thomas C. Robinson, Mike Sparkman, Louis J. Swift*,
Enid S. Waldhart*, Charles T. Wethington, Carolyn A. Williams, Eugene
Williams, Emery A. Wilson, and Peter Wong*.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the University Senate
for the T990 academic year. As Chair of the Senate Council it is her respon—
sibility to conduct the monthly meetings of the University Senate. The Chair
welcomed the new Senators and told them if they had questions about the
process, to feel free to ask. She also welcomed those who are non—Senators.
She assured everyone that they would have the time to be heard. She reminded
the Senate there is no proxy voting. She stated that representatives of
absent Senators are welcome to speak but would not be permitted to vote.

The Minutes of the meetings of April 9, T990, and April 23, T990 were
approved as submitted.

The Chair recognized Professor Dallas N. High (Philosophy) for a Memorial


Jesse deBoer
T912 — T990

Jesse deBoer, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Kentucky, died Friday evening, May 25, after several
months of illness. He was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on
August 28, T9T2. His parents, the late Klass and Grietje Kenning
deBoer, had immigrated from the Netherlands in T903. Professor
deBoer earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy from Calvin
College in T933. He received his M.A. degree from the University
of Illinois in T935. Following completion of his master's degree
he was invited to return to his alma mater to teach philosophy,
which he did from T935 to T939.

*Absence explained.


 Minutes, University Senate, September 10, 1990

Professor deBoer received the Ph.D. degree from Harvard
University in 1942. He remained at Harvard University as an
Instructor of Phi1osophy for 1942—43. He served the U.S. Navy in
a Seabees Construction Batta1ion from 1943—45, stationed in the
Pacific Is1ands and the Phi1ippines. Fo11owing his discharge from
the U.S. Navy in 1945, Professor deBoer joined what had been a
one—member Department of Phi1osophy at the University of
Kentucky. He retired in 1977, after 32 years of outstanding
service to the University.

Professor deBoer served for many years in a very sma11
department at the University of Kentucky. Yet, the demands for
teaching, advising and direction of these was significant. He
regu1ar1y and gracious1y taught four courses per semester. He had
a deep concern and respect for students. He became a high1y
revered and inf1uentia1 teacher. He 1itera11y touched the 1ives
of hundreds of students through his specia1 1oves of c1assica1
Greek phi1osophy (P1ato and Aristot1e), ethics, phi1osophy of
re1igion and wor1d re1igions. Indeed, a former student, now
Distinguished Professor of Phi1osophy at Princeton Theo1ogica1
Seminary, has not on1y dedicated a book to Professor deBoer but
frequent1y speaks of him in his writings as "my teacher.”

Professor deBoer was the recipient of severa1 important
fe11owships and grants, inc1uding the Forst Foundation Facu1ty
Fe11owship in 1952—53. He pub1ished numerous artic1es and reviews
in various journa1s and books. He presented numerous papers at
professiona1 meetings and was especia11y pro1ific in presentations
to community and church-re1ated groups throughout the Commonwea1th
of Kentucky. He devoted his 1ife to the practice of carefu1 and
honest painstaking academic work. He was an avid reader and
amassed a sizab1e persona1 1ibrary. Above a11 he was an ambassa-
dor of the 1ove for and va1ue of phi1osophy for a11 peop1e.

Professor deBoer was a member of the American Phi1osophica1
Association, Mind Association and was a founding member of The
Kentucky Phi1osophica1 Association. He served the Association as
its Vice President in 1973-74 and as President in 1974-75. Dr.
deBoer was a dedicated member of the Hunter Presbyterian Church
and served his church as a teacher, a c1erk of session, and as an
active participant in various committees 1oca11y, regiona11y and

Catherine, whom Jesse deBoer married on August 26, 1938,
preceded him in death on March 17, 1988. Dr. deBoer is survived
by a daughter, Rebecca, a son, Jonathan, three granddaughters and
three brothers.

A strong and hardy Dutchman, Jesse deBoer wi11 be remembered
by his co11eagues, former students, and many, many friends as a
kind, gent1e, witty and wise man who gave of himse1f to his stu-
dents, the University of Kentucky, his church and community, and
the wor1d. Sure1y a11 persons who knew him have been enriched by
his 1ife.


 Minutes, University Senate, September lO, l990

Professor High requested that the Memorial Resolution be spread upon the
Minutes of the University Senate and that copies be sent to Professor deBoer's
daughter, Rebecca, and son, Jon.

The Chair asked the Senate to stand for a moment of silence.

The second resolution came from Professor Marcus McEllistrem. It was
offered as a resolution to thank the immediate past Chair of the Senate
Council, Professor Donald Leigh, for his year of service. The Chair
recognized Professor McEllistrem who presented the following resolution.

Donald C. Leigh

Professor Donald C. Leigh of Engineering Mechanics, one of our
highly regarded scholars and teachers, succeeded to the post of
Chairman, University Senate Council in May of l989. Don had already
provided superb but quiet leadership to the University community in a
variety of administrative roles, and a variety of Senate assignments.

One of the special marks of Don's leadership was his full
support of and involvement of our University in the Congress of
Senate Faculty Leaders of Kentucky. This is an umbrella leadership
organization which provides communication of academic and administra—
tive policies across the university campuses throughout Kentucky.
More than past Chairpersons, Don sought to build the different
universities into a common educational community with shared values
and shared initiatives for all higher education.

Don, as other Chairpersons before him, showed great patience and
ingenuity in welding the divergent positions and advice of Senate
Council members into policies and positions which incorporated the
best elements devised by the Council. Each of us felt his full
respect and cooperation in offering our insights into Council and
University matters.

Another vital leadership role Don accepted and executed with
great grace and quiet dignity was coordinating the University
response to the turmoil surrounding the decision of former President
Roselle to depart this campus, and the resulting change to an Interim
Presidency. Don actively expanded the number of breakfast meetings
with the President and other senior administrative officers, and made
them a regular means of strengthening the lines of communication
between faculty and students and administration. Don expressed the
will of the Senate always in a direct and forthright way, which
commanded the trust and respect of all who heard him.

As many past Chairpersons of the University Senate, Don accepted
and solved many individual problems brought to his attention,
although these were not part of any Senate agenda.

As I have already noted, Professor Donald Leigh's special gift
for quiet, dignified communication helped to bridge the inevitable


 Minutes, University Senate, September 10, l990

gap between faculty and students on the one hand and administrative
offices on the other —- he is most of all an effective builder of
University community. It is a privilege to salute the Senate
leadership of Professor Donald Leigh.

Professor McEllistrem requested that the Resolution be presented to
Professor Leigh as a symbol of the Senate's appreciation and that a copy be
spread upon the Minutes of the Senate. The Senate gave Professor Donald Leigh
a round of applause.

The Chair stated that the University of Kentucky right now is at a
critical juncture in its history. A process is underway to choose a new
president, and the University Senate will consider the role of the faculty in
that process. She added that there are strongly held and conflicting opinions
about the process. The Senate is used to debating each other on hotly con-
tested issues. She stated that such debate with its inherent respect for the
opinions of all those who participate in it, is the very heart of the academic
world and it is an integral part of the faculty's professional lives. She
felt that the Senate had a unique Opportunity to demonstrate how faculty
engages in full and fair debate as they deliberate on the best course of
action for the faculty of the University of Kentucky to pursue. Professors
William Lyons, Loys Mather and Carolyn Bratt were elected to serve as the
three representatives on the Presidential Search Committee. The Chair stated
that the only information the three believed should not be shared with the
Senate is the names of the nominees and the candidates that have not become a
matter of public record.

The Chair recognized Professor Lyons to report on the activities of the
Search Committee. A summary of Professor Lyons‘ remarks follows:

Professor Lyons stated that he had written several versions of a
report for the Senate but had torn all of them up. He stated that he
would try to be as objective and as candid as he could. He had hoped
to come before the Senate to give a very different kind of report.

He had hoped to be able to report that the Search Committee had
invited four outstanding candidates to campus to complete the final
round of interviews with representatives of the faculty, students,
administration, and of course the Search Committee and the Board of
Trustees as prescribed in the Governing Regulations. He had also
hoped to be able to summarize the background and qualifications of
each of the four finalists for the Senate's consideration and to urge
each one to critically and very carefully evaluate each of their
credentials against the criteria that had been adopted at the outset
of the search process. Finally, he had hoped to be able to recommend
that following the conclusion of interviewing there would be an
opportunity for the faculty to hear their representatives on the
Search Committee as well as the members of the faculty group that had
met with all of the candidates at an open forum where they could
engage in a dialogue about who the Board of Trustees should appoint
as the next President of the University of Kentucky.

Professor Lyons stated that events had conspired to prevent his
giving that particular report and the report he had to give began
with a statement of fact. "It has already been reported in the press


 Minutes, University Senate, September 10, l990

and the electronic media. As of this moment, at least, there are
only two candidates for the job as President at the University of
Kentucky —— Dr. Wethington and Dr. Peggy Elliott.” His assumption is
that everyone is familiar with the background and credentials of Dr.
Methington. He hoped that everyone read the story about Dr. Elliott
in the Herald-Leader. But he did feel compelled to say something
about the two finalists who dropped out of the race.

He began with Dr. Jon Wefald, who is currently President at
Kansas State. Dr. Nefald was a candidate and has since withdrawn.
The three faculty members on the Search Committee agreed that Dr.
Hefald presented a very strong and balanced set of credentials. He
is a sitting president, historian by trade, and has a strong academic
background. He has held a wide variety of top-level administrative
jobs prior to becoming President of Kansas State and has a reputation
for being able to communicate well with a broad spectrum of Univer-
sity constituencies including governors and legislators. Professor
Lyons left on vacation believing Dr. Wefald was a solid candidate and
one of the final four, but returned from vacation to discover that
Dr. Wefald had cancelled his preliminary visit and had withdrawn from
the race allegedly because he had been told by a member of the Board
of Trustees who was not on the Search Committee that the decision was
a ”done deal." That left Dr. Methington, Dr. Elliott and Dr. William
Muse, President of the University of Akron.

Professor Lyons stated that Dr. Muse was another candidate who
presented a much stronger set of credentials than some people were
prepared to admit at first glance. The three faculty members on the
Search Committee were very impressed with his credentials from the
very outset. In addition to being an accomplished scholar in manage—
ment, Dr. Muse has been Dean of the College of Business at Texas A &
M as well as Chancellor at that large land-grant institution before
taking over as President of the University of Akron. Dr. Muse also
had requested that he be allowed to visit Lexington before the final
stages of the process began and did in fact, visit Lexington while
Professor Lyons was on vacation and met informally with Foster
Ockerman, the Chair of the Search Committee and Carolyn Bratt, who
was in the unfortunate position of being the only faculty representa—
tive on the Search Committee not out-of-town at the time. Both
Foster Ockerman and Carolyn Bratt reported to the Search Committee
that they were very impressed with Dr. Muse. Professor Lyons stated
that unfortunately Dr. Muse chose to withdraw as the final plans were
being made for his visit to campus to meet with designated groups of
faculty, students, admin— istrators, and members of the Search
Committee and the Board of Trustees. Again, the reason that was
given for withdrawing was that it had become evident that the search
was, in fact, over.

Professor Lyons stated that at this point one can only wonder
what kind of signals Dr. Elliott will receive as the clock winds down
and the time approaches when each of the finalists should be meeting
with representatives of the faculty, student body, administrators and
the Board.


 Minutes, University Sénate, September l0, l990

After giving the basic facts that were available to him at this
point, Professor Lyons reported that a faculty forum has been sched-
uled for Monday, September l7 at 3:30 p.m. in Horsham Theater in the
Student Center to discuss the relative merits of the two remaining
candidates. As far as Professor Lyons knows those candidates will be
engaged in a series of interviews during the coming week.

In conclusion, Professor Lyons made some remarks about the
process. He felt compelled to do this because there has been so much
said about the process publicly and in the press. He stated that the
three faculty members of the Search Committee met shortly after they
were elected to discuss what their role ought to be in the search
process and what they should do if and when there was sufficient
evidence that the process did not follow the kinds of procedures
generally associated with an open search. They agreed they would
hold the Search Committee and the Board of Trustees responsible for
jumping through all the ”hoops” that most reasonable observers would
associate with an open search. Their second goal was to push as hard
as they could to get strong candidates for consideration.

They also agreed that the presidential search was going to be
conducted under some rather difficult circumstances, including the
appointment of an Interim President who would be eligible to become
president. They knew about the rumors and speculations being circu-
lated that it was a “done deal,” and that there was considerable

danger that a constant pounding of that theme by the press and by
individuals throughout the community would create the kind of self—
fulfilling prophecy that could doom the process in the end. The
faculty members decided they would simply have to deal with the
rumors and speculations regarding the ”done deal” as they became
manifest in the process.

Professor Lyons stated that from the very beginning there was
nothing that any of the elected faculty representatives on the Search
Committee could really "hang their hat on" to prove they were not
engaged in an open and nation—wide search for the very best candi—
dates for presidency for the institution. They adopted the criteria
that had been used in the last presidential search, hired a consul—
tant, and went through all the motions of advertising. Another
problem they had to deal with was the conseqences of a lawsuit filed
by the Herald-Leader. The committee was not able to bring candidates
to the campus with the ability of assuring them of any degree of
confidence. He stated that most of the better candidates were
"sitting presidents." Those people are very skittish about their
positions back home. The committee had to turn most of the process
over to the consultants. He pointed out that Ohio State had turned
the whole search over to consultants because of a similar set of
contraints. They hired one of UK's very strong candidates early in
the game without much open discussion at all.

Professor Lyons feels that it is a shame that the process of
selecting a president cannot be done with sufficient dignity and that
good candidates have to be jeopardized because of adverse and early


 Minutes, University Senate, September l0, l990

Professor Lyons stated that some other things encountered along
.the way concerned the number of candidates that applied. He pointed
out that among the 77 candidates who agreed to let their credentials
be considered, there were some very strong candidates. Among them
were two people who were identified in the press. One is Dr. Gordon
Gee who took the job at Ohio State. In addition, the committee felt
that Ann Reynolds was a strong candidate, who at that time was
Chancellor of the California State University System, but later
accepted the position as President of the City University of New

Nevertheless, he stated there was a point when the faculty
members on the search committee felt they had made some headway in
getting some very strong contenders into the ”ballgame.” They were
not naive about all the rumors of a ”done deal," but he reported that
there is not a whole lot anyone can do when Board Members put the
word out that there are l5 votes against you. That kind of news
cannot help but get candidates to resign real quick. In short, there
was not much that could be done when the word kept getting out that
”it's done, it's over, it's finished, it's through.”

There were some similarities between this search and the last
one, however. The last time it was reported that two finalists
pulled out in that search because of news that it was a "done deal.”
And there were people who said they really were not very impressed by
a provost from VPI. But he felt that despite these similarites,
there was a totally different ballgame this time around. He stated
there is no doubt in his mind that a sitting iterim president causes
problems. He feels the Senate should urge the Board of Trustees not
to do that in the future. He does believe that the constant din of
horror stories drove some of the people out very early in the game.
Professor Lyons knows one candidate that made no bones about it very
early-~he read the handwriting on the wall. He urged the Senators to
consider that. He feels the university is at a critical juncture and
believes the process will go forward. He also believes even if there
is only one candidate that person will have to go through the process
of being interviewed by someone.

Professor Lyons concluded his remarks by saying, ”It ain‘t been


The Senate gave Professor Lyons a round of applause.

The Chair recognized Professor Michael Freeman (Mathematics) for the
purpose of making a motion to adopt a resolution. Professor Freeman moved the
adoption of a resolution which was circulated to those in the meeting.

Professor Hans Gesund (Civil Engineering) moved that the media be excluded
from personnel considerations. His feelings are that the media is largely
responsible for what has happened. The Chair stated the Senate Rules 2.3
states that Senate Meetings shall be open to the press except that any meeting
of the Senate may declare itself in executive session by a majority vote of
the Senators present and thereby exclude all visitors not explicitly


 Minutes, University Senate, September l0, l990

designated for attendance by the presiding officer or by a majority vote of
the Senators present. Professor Gesund moved to exclude the press but permit
all faculty and staff to remain. There was no second, and the motion failed.
The Senate applauded.

The Chair recognized Professor Freeman. Professor Freeman stated that the
report from Professor Lyons is disheartening and bears out the worst apprehen-
sions and proves the current search process is not working. He feels there is
no hope for a truly effective search as long as there is a candidate for the
presidency who simultaneously sits in that seat. He stated that the Senate
must disallow the process. He feels the faculty is obligated to protest for
their own self-respect. On behalf of himself and several colleagues, he moved
adoption of the following resolution.

A Resolution
for Consideration by the Faculty Senate
of the
University of Kentucky

Convinced that the current search process for a President of the
University of Kentucky is fundamentally flawed, the University Senate
resolves to withdraw its support from the search process and to urge
the faculty and its representatives on the Search Committee not to
participate further in that process until a genuinely open search is

The motion was seconded by Professor Kumble Subbaswamy (Physics).

The floor was opened for debate. Professor Thomas Blues (English) felt
the resolution was great and wanted to know why it was not made in January.
It seemed to him there exists a fundamental problem. He stated that the
faculty knew from the very beginning the search was tainted and what the
situation was. With all due respect for the faculty members on the search
committee and for his colleagues, now that the day has come when the candi—
dates are announced, he feels the resolution comes several months too late.

Student Senator Sean Lohman (Student Government President) stated that the
resolution mentioned the words, "fundamentally flawed" because one of the
candidates for the job is also presently holding the position. Mr. Lohman
wanted to know if the resolution is really asking Dr. Wethington to exclude
himself from the search. Professor Freeman's response was that the main
purpose is that the Senate body disassociate itself from the current process.
He stated that if the body wanted to make explicit suggestions, it could do
so, but he did not feel it necessary to include that in the resolution.

Professor Constance Wilson (Social Work), who was a faculty trustee during
the past presidential search, stated that the process was exactly the same at
that time. She feels the faculty should think of the future of this univer—
sity. She stated the faculty members on the search committee have intelli—
gence and integrity. Professor Wilson agrees with Professor Blues that if the
process was flawed, the faculty should have made a resolution immediately
after the last search because the same kinds of things existed. She felt the


 Minutes, University Senate, September l0, l990

Senate should look at how they are attacking one person in a Senate meeting to
call peOple "on the carpet”, especially when they are not at the meeting to
defend themselves. She wanted to know if the Senate was really looking at the
process or just saying they do not like the results. To her that is not the
democratic process. Student Government President Lohman seconded Professor
Wilson's remarks. He stated that since the day Dr. Roselle resigned, the
student leaders have known who was going to come out of the process as the
President of the University of Kentucky. Mr. Lohman added that unless Dr.
Hethington disassociated himself from the search, which he is not in favor of
and hoped the students are not in favor of, the process is finished. He
stated there are l5 Board members who are going to vote for Dr. Wethington.

He said it would happen again even if the search were reopened. The student
body is going to recommend to the Board of Trustees to change the Governing
Regulations asking that the interim president not be allowed to be a candidate
for the permanent job. He added that this recommendation is not geared at Dr.
Hethington but at the circumstances surrounding the process. He stated that
most Board members have made their positions clear, and it is obvious that Dr.
Wethington is going to be the next president. He feels the people cannot be
condemned but the process itself can be. The students do support the part of
the resolution about the "flaw” in the process, but they do not support asking
the faculty to withdraw their support since the students are not faculty
members. He stated that the student delegation of the University Senate would
abstain from voting on the resolution.

Professor Paul Eakin (Mathematics) completely agrees with and thoroughly
supports the motion. He stated that the Senate is the place where a lot of
decisions are made. He supports the motion as a means of protecting and
reaffirming the integrity of the academic decision process. Professor Eakin
stated that in the final analysis it is the integrity of the academic decision
process such as grades, awards, promotions, scholarships, appointments and
certainly academic degrees which is a large part of what the faculty does.

The technical process is one that reasonable, knowledgable people are able to
understand or appreciate the logic of the outcome and can deal with the
criteria and the information available to them. He stated this does not mean
they have to agree with the results. In his opinion, the current search fails
this test, notwithstanding the honest efforts of the Search Committee to make
it work. Professor Eakin feels the purpose should be to make a clear distinc-
tion between this and the way the academic community conducts its business
because there is too much at stake to do otherwise.

Professor Hans Gesund (Civil Engineering) felt the Senate was "barking up
the wrong tree.” He does not see any reason why an interim president cannot
be a candidate for the final position. In fact, he has a great liking for
that, because he believes in ”try before you buy.” He stated that if the
person is good, why not use an inside person. He could think of very few
industries or businesses that bring in their chief executives from outside.
Frequently, a person is given the position in an acting capacity and then she
or he will get the job permanently if that person does well. He added that
chairmen, deans, chancellors, and so on at this University are very often
appointed first on an acting or iterim basis. He was an acting chairman for a
year and then became chairman. Engineering has had two acting deans within
the last two years that did not get the permanent job. He does not feel the
process is a ”done deal” from the beginning just because Dr. HethingtOh is the
interim president. His feeling is that if the resolution is passed, it is a


 Minutes, University Senate, September l0, l990

”slap in the face" to the Board of Trustees and the interim president. He
stated they have done the best for the University they could and that Dr.
Wethington has "gone way out” to help. He asked the faculty to compare their
pay checks this fall. The Chair ruled that the remarks should be addressed to
the motion which is about the process and not about people.

Professor James Hells (Mathematics) urged the members of the Senate to
support the motion. He did not feel the support should be made with the
expectation that their voice would carry great influence in the short term,
but each one should hope their voice would carry influence in the long term.
He asked the Senators to keep in mind that the history of open searches at the
University of Kentucky is not old. It was in l963 that a determined group of
faculty headed by Dr. Louis Cochran went to Frankfort and asked the sitting
Governor not to interfere in the search process of a new president, and the
Governor agreed. Following that there have been 27 years of unprecedented
progress at the institution. He feels everyone is proud of what has happened
in the last two and one—half decades. He stated that the University is in
clear danger of losing the possibility of an open search and even though the
Senators may not be able to affect the outcome surely they owe it to the
faculty to secure those principles and to the administrators who defended them
to stand up and say, "This is the way this University ought to be conducted.“
Professor Wells was given a round of applause. The Chair reminded the Senate
that applause was out of order.

Professor Jesse Neil (Physics) stated that he heartily supports the
resolution and agrees with Professors Eakin and Wells and that everyone should
vote for the motion. He added that even if the search process has not been
”fundamentally flawed” it has the perception of being ”fundamentally flawed."
That perception has scared off many of the very good candidates. He felt that
is the thing the Senators should be most concerned about and by having Dr.
Hethington as the interim president it gave the perception that he had the
inside track and has prevented the University from having an effective, open
search for the very best candidate. He added that whether or not Dr.
Wethington is a good candidate, the main thing to be critical of is that the
process has the perception of being “fundamentally flawed" and very possibly
is flawed.

Professor John Thrailkill (Geology) came to the meeting unsure of his
thoughts and wanted to hear from the faculty members on the Search Committee.
Based on Professor Lyons' remarks, Professor Thrailkill could not conclude
that the search process was ”fundamentally flawed.” He feels it is quite
likely that the selection process is flawed. He stated that the motion
referred to the search process and from what Professor Lyons said, it appears
to Professor Thrailkill that one cannot say that the search process was
"fundamentally flawed."

Professor Scott Smith (Agronomy) opposed the motion because it seemed to
represent an abdication of responsibility. He felt the Senate should be
insisting on either greater participation in search processes whereas now it
is withdrawing because it does not like the way the game is going, so "We
will take our ball and go home.“ Professor Smith stated that if the Senators
are unhappy with the outcome, then that issue should be addressed. If the
Senators are unhappy with the process, then address how the process can be
fixed. If the Senators are unha