xt7h18344v2p https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7h18344v2p/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1981-10-12  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, October 12, 1981 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 12, 1981 1981 1981-10-12 2020 true xt7h18344v2p section xt7h18344v2p UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY


September 29, 1981

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday, October 12,
1981 at 3:00 PM in room CB 106.

University Senate Minutes, September 14, 1981.

Chairman's Remarks

Action Items:

a) Admissions Standards in Applied Music (circu1ated under
date of September 29, 1981).

b) Senate Reorganization (circulated under date of September
22, 1981).

Elbert W. Ocke rman





The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, October l2,
l98l, in Room lO6 of the Classroom Building.

James Kemp, presiding

Members absent: M. M. Ali, Paul J. Amatuzzo*, James Applegate, Charles E. Barnhart,
John R. Baseheart, James C. Beidleman*, Joanne I. Bell, William H. Blackburn, Jack C.
Blanton, James A. Boling*, Britt Brockman, James Buckholtz*, Joseph T. Burch, Harry M.
Caudill, It-Keong Chew*, Donald B. Clapp, John Conklin*, J. Donald Coonrod, Clifford J.
Cremers, George Denemark*, David E. Dentonf, Alan DeYoung, Louis Diamond, Jim Dinkle,
Richard C. Domek, Joseph Dougherty, Herbert N. Drennon, Anthony Eardley, Roger Eichhorn*,
Paul G. Forand*, Joseph Fugate*, Richard N. Furst*, Dean Garritson, John H. Garvey*,
Thomas C. Gray, Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hasan*, Roger N. Hemken*, Debbie Hertelendy,
Raymond R. Hornback, Eugene Huff*, Leslie Huff, Charles Hultman, La Vonne Jaeger, David
T. Kao, Michael J. Kirckhorn*, Theodore A. Kotchen*, Shea Lair, James R. Lang*, Stephen
Langston, Thomas P. Lewis*, Rey M. Longyear*, Tim Mann, Kenneth E. Marino*, James R.
Marsden, Sally S. Mattingly*, Ernest Middleton, H. Brinton Milward*, John M. Mitchell,
Robert C. N0ble*, P. J. 0'Connor*, Bernard Orr, Clayton R. Paul*, Peter Purdue*, Herbert
G. Reid, Gregory Richardson, Eugenie C. Scott, Jon M. Shepard*, Otis A. Singletary,
John T. Smith, Raymond Smith*, Mary Beth Speaks, Edward F. Stanton*, Earl L. Steele,
William Stober*, Lee T. Todd, Mark Vonderheide, O'Neal Weeks, Charles Nethington, Howard
Blaine Wood

The minutes of the meeting of September l4, l98l, were approved as circulated.

Chairman Kemp recognized Professor Michael Brooks, Academic Ombudsman, for an
announcement. Professor Brooks called the Senate's attention to a memorandum that had
been circulated. He said his office has experienced an increasing number of student
complaints regarding not being able to make up class work/exams missed due to partici-
pation in officially sanctioned University activities, such as student organizations,
official class activities (e.g. field trips),.and intercollegiate athletic teams.
University Senate Rules state “The faculty member in charge of an authorized trip shall
notify instructors affected that the absence is authorized. The student shall be
responsible for the work missed, and, in advance of the trip, should make arrangements
to make up the work. The instructor shall, if feasible, give the student an oppor—
tunity to make up the work missed, and shall not, in any case, arbitrarily penalize
the student for the absence.” He urged the Senate members to share this with their


Chairman Kemp rocognized Professor James Knoblett who presented the following
Memorial Resolution on the death of Professor Albert Neyman Patrick.

Albert Neyman Patrick, 1923-l98l

Dr. Albert Neyman Patrick, Professor of Accounting from
l957-l98l, died August 23, l98l, in Lexington, Kentucky.

Dr. Patrick was born in Aragon, Georgia, December 25,
1923. He was in the United States Navy from l942-l946.
Dr. Patrick attended Emory University and the University of
North Carolina from which he received a 8.3. Degree in

*Absence explained



Accounting in 1946. Pat, as he was known to his friends
and acquaintances, was a Staff Accountant for Price Water—
house & Company in At1anta, Georgia, from 1946 to 1948, and
an Assistant Production Manager, Ho1eproof Hosiery Company,
Marietta, Georgia, from 1948 to 1950.

In 1950, he enro11ed in Graduate Schoo1 at the University
of Michigan, receiving an MBA Degree in 1951, and was awarded
a Ph.D. in Business Administration — Accounting in 1955.

Prior to coming to the University of Kentucky in 1968
as a Professor of Accounting, Dr. Patrick was a facu1ty mem—
ber at the fo11owing institutions: University of Michigan,
University of Virginia, Georgia State University, and The
University of Tennessee. During his academic career he
' taught courses in the entire spectrum of accounting, at both
graduate and undergraduate 1eve1s. His students and fe11ow
facu1ty members remember him best for his penetrating, in—
sightfu1 questions. He was tru1y a conscientious and dedi—
cated academic.

Dr. Patrick's research efforts resu1ted in twenty—seven
artic1es and two textbooks. He a1so contributed to three
other books. One of his artic1es on Break Even Ana1ysis was
reviewed or reprinted in the Nether1ands, Eng1and, and
Austra1ia. His Cost Accounting text was one of the 1eading
texts in the United States for severa1 years. Pat a1so de-
1ivered numerous speeches and papers to many professiona1

A. w. Patrick was a member of the American Institute
of Certified Pub1ic Accountants, the American Accounting
Association, the Nationa1 Association of Accountants, the
American Association of University Professors, and the
Kentucky Society of Certified Pub1ic Accountants. He was an
active member of these organizations. He served as President
of the University of Tennessee's Chapter of AAUP and was
President of the University of Kentucky's Chapter. Pat a1so
served as President of the Knoxvi11e Chapter of the Nationa1
Association of Accountants and was a Past President of the
B1uegrass Area Chapter of NAA 1ocated here in Lexington.
Besides having served as Nationa1 Director for NAA, Pat a1so
served on many key committees for the American Accounting
Association. His chairmanship of three of the AAA committees
resu1ted in important monographs dea1ing with education in
Accounting at both graduate and undergraduate 1eve1s. Pat
c1ear1y 1eft his stamp on the Accounting Profession and our

He is survived by his wife, Lucy Thomas Patrick; a
daughter, Catherine E1izabeth; and a son, Gera1d Thomas, a11
of Lexington, Kentucky.

The facu1ty of the Department of Accounting wishes to
express to Mrs. Patrick, Gerry, and Cathy their deep sympathy
and fee1ing of sorrow in the 1055 of a co11eague and friend.



I move that this resolution be spread upon the minutes of
the University Senate and that copies be sent to Dr. Patrick's

(Prepared by Professor James Knoblett, Associate Dean of the College of Business
and Economics)

Chairman Kemp directed that the Resolution be made a part of these minutes and
that a copy be sent to Mrs. Patrick, Cathy and Gerry. The Senators were asked to stand
for a moment of silence in tribute and respect to Professor Albert Weyman Patrick.

The Chairman reminded the Senators of the rally that would be held Wednesday,
October l4, at noon on the lawn in front of the Administration Building. The rally was
in support of higher education in Kentucky. He said that Britt Brockman, Student
Government President urged the faculty to attend and to encourage their colleagues to
attend. The Student Government would like to have the support of the Senate.

Chairman Kemp recognized Professor Donald Ivey for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Ivey, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended the proposed
addition to admissions standards, School of Music. Professor Ivey said that it was "house-
keeping" as the School of Music had had auditions for the past five or six years but had
never brought the proposal to the attention of the Senate. This proposal was circulated
to members of the University Senate under date of September 28, l98l.

There was no discussion, and the proposal which passed unanimously reads as follows:


The School of Music requests approval of the following selective admissions
policy, which is standard for any member school of the National Association
of Schools of Music:

Admission to the Bachelor of Arts in Music program

or to the Bachelor of Music program is granted only
after the successful completion of an audition in the
student's applied area.


A basic component of undergraduate music education is the development of
advanced musicianship through performance. This ability is fundamental to
any future endeavor of the music graduate, whether it be in performance,
composition, the education of future musicians, or in the historical or
theoretical analysis of the musical art. Therefore, demonstration of a well-
developed performing ability is a prerequisite to a music major on the
university level in the same way that proficiency in mathematical and verbal
skills is prerequisite to success in a liberal arts program of any sort.

The main action item for the meeting was the proposal to reorganize the committee
structure and membership of the Senate. The proposal was discussed at the April Senate
Meeting and was to have been an agenda item for the May meeting. There was not a quorum
in May; Therefore, the proposal was delayed for action until the October meeting. The
members of the ad hoc Committee to study the Organization and Committee Structure of the
Senate were Professors Lyle Back, Andy Grimes, Don Sands, Doug Rees, Mike Adelstein,

Jim Ogletree and Mr. Will Dupree, student representative. Since Professor Kemp was
Chairman of the Committee, he felt it was better if he vacated the Chair in favor of



Professor Schwert who acted as moderator for the deliberations and Professor Kemp acted
as a resource person for the Committee. Professor Stan Smith acted as parliamentarian.

Chairman Kemp relinquished the Chair to Professor Schwert who said that the report
related to the number of faculty members, students and the proposal to change the ex
officio members from voting to non—voting status. The Senate began at Item five of the

The Chair recognized Professor Donald Ivey for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Ivey, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended Item five, ”Change
in Officers of the Senate Council, Rule 3.l 3. The proposal was circulated to members
of the University Senate under date of September 22, l98l.

There was no discussion. The previous question was moved and passed. Item five
which passed unanimously reads as follows:


Change in officers, terms of officers, election dates of officers and
duties of officers of the Senate Council



Rule 3 l.3 "The officers of the Senate Council shall consist of a
Chairman and a Chairman—elect. The Chairman shall hold office from
May l6 through May l5, preside at Council meetings, and be respon—
sible for the operation of the Senate Council office. The Chairman-
elect shall be elected in April from among the nine faculty members
on the Council, and shall hold office from May l6 through May l5. At
that time the Chairman—elect will assume the position of Chairman.
The duties of the Chairman—elect shall be to present and explain
Council recommendations to the University Senate for action and to
assume the duties of the Chairman in the absence of that officer.
The Chairman-elect shall also be responsible for seeing that the
minutes of the Council are accurately recorded and promply distri—
buted. If for any reason the office of the Chairman—elect should
become vacant, the Council shall act as soon as possible to elect a


The term of office of the Chairman has been changed from the year
beginning July I to the year beginning May l5 in order to conform
more exactly to the academic calendar.

The offices of the Chairman-elect and the Secretary have been com-
bined. The Chairman—elect would be elected to office in April,
would perform the duties of the present Secretary for approximately
thirteen months, and would then assume the position of Chairman on
May l6. As a result of this early election of the future Chairman,
the Committee feels that more members of the Senate Council would
be willing to accept this position, having sufficient time under
this proposal to plan for the necessary changes in their teaching,
research and service obligations.

The changed rule also desCribes the duties of the Chairman—elect
more specifically.



The Chair recognized Professor Donald Ivey for a motion from the Senate Council
on Item six. Professor Ivey, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended
adoption of a footnote to the change in Rule 3.l.3 for clarification. He said that was
what was being done at the present.

There was no discussion, and the motion passed unanimously. Number six reads as


Addition of footnote to the previous rule change for clarification


Footnote: 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 mem—
bers to the Senate or to the Senate Council, thereby expanding the
normal size of both those bodies.


The footnote is added 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 individuals's term as a member of
the Senate may have expired. No present statement in the rules deals
with this problem.

Professor Schwert recognized Professor Donald Ivey for a motion from the Senate
Council on Item seven. Professor Ivey, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recom-
mended Item seven, change in membership of committees to allow for up to one-half of
the members to be selected from outside the Senate. Professor Ivey said that the motion
was to allow non-Senators to be placed on committees in the hope that the membership of
a committee could be chosen in terms of a person's expertise or involvement in a parti—
cular situation or comprehension and not just because they happen to be on the Senate.

It would also involve members of the University Community outside the Senate.

The floor was opened for discussion. Professor Gesund moved to defer action on Item
seven until action had been taken on the first four parts of the proposal. Professor
Kemp said that the item was in the proposal in order to get expertise even with the large
Senate. The item stated at least one-half of the membership of the committee shall be
Senators. ~

The motion to defer consideration of Item seven failed. The previous question was
moved and passed. The motion to change membership of committees passed unanimously and
reads as follows:


Change in membership of committees to allow for up to one—half of
the members to be selected from outside the Senate


A. Delete the following parts of Senate Rule 4.0 Committees of the
Senate. [Except for the Committees on Special Teaching Programs,
Academic Facilities, and General Studies, membership on Senate com-
mittees shall be limited to members of the Senate.] The number of
members on each committee shall be determined by the Senate Council.



A11 appointments to Senate standing committees sha11 be made by

the Senate Counci1 for terms beginning on September 1 and staggered
to provide a one—third change in committee membership each year.
Chairmen of standing committees sha11 be appointed by the Senate
Counci1. That person the Chairman and at 1east one-ha1f the member—
ship of the committee sha11 be Senators.

The term of office for a facu1ty committee member sha11 be 3 years.
[A senator e1ected to a second consecutive three—year term may con-
tinue to serve on the same committee or request a transfer to
another committee.] Student appointments sha11 be for one year.
[However, if ree1ected to the Senate in the fo11owing year, a stu—
dent member may continue service on the same committee or request
transfer to another committee. The Senate Counci1 sha11 consu1t
with the President in appointing senators who ho1d administrative
positions to standing committees of the Senate, and such appointees
sha11 serve as 1ong as they are senatorsq

Appointments to an advisory committee sha11 be made by the Presi-
dent after consu1tation with the Senate Counci1. After consu1tation
with Student Association and other appropriate student groups, the
Counci1 may recommend to the President that students be appointed

to an advisory committee of the Senate.

Appointments to fi11 committee vacancies sha11 be made in the same
manner as appointments for regu1ar terms. Membership on Senate
committees sha11 continue unti1 terms expire or successors are
appointed. v

[The Committees on Specia1 Teaching Programs, Academic Faci1ities,
and Genera1 Studies, as designated in their charges, sha11 function
exc1usive1y through permanent subcommittees, which may inc1ude non—
senators. The chairman of each subcommittee and a majority of its
members must be members of the Senate. The Chairman of each sub—
committee sha11 be appointed by the Senate Counci1 in consu1tation
with the Chairman of the parent standing committee, who sha11 be

an e; officio member of each subcommittee. Subcommittee reports
must be reviewed and acted upon by the entire committee before
being transmitted to the Senate Counci1.]

The Chairmen of Senate standing committees, [other than those re—
ferred to above] may appoint ad hoc subcommittees and may se1ect.
their members in consu1tation with the Chairman of the Senate
Counci1. Such a subcommittee must be chaired by a member of the
parent committee.


By making a greater number of facu1ty, students, and administra—
tors e1igib1e for Senate committees, it is fe1t that the committees
wi11 be strengthened. Future members can be se1ected because of
their specia1 know1edge, concern or interest instead of being p1aced
on committees mere1y because they are e1ected to the Senate. The
ru1ing change a1so a11ows the Senate to uti1ize the ta1ents of
younger facu1ty members, re1ative1y few of whom have been Senate
members in the past.



Professor Schwert recognized Professor Donald Ivey for a motion from the Senate
Council on Item eight. Professor Ivey, on behalf of the University Senate Council,
recommended Item eight, Annual Faculty Survey to Identify Issues for Committee Study.

The floor was opened for discussion. Professor Just spoke against the motion and
said to him there was a method already for identifying issues. Dean Royster wanted to
know what kind of response rate was needed before the issue was important enough to go
before the Senate Council. Professor Kemp responded that at the present the Council
didn't have any. He added that in most surveys if the response were thirty percent it
would be considered a good return. Professor Just asked when the Council did take action
and if one faculty member asked about a specific issue, would the whole body look into
that issue. Professsor Kemp responded that the proposal would be screened by the Senate
Council and those deemed worthy would be studied. He added that the Senate Council
would not study everything turned in.

Professor McKenna asked if the Senate Council couldn't do that anyway without putting
the statement in the rules and mandating it. Professor Schwert responded that he didn't
see any reason why the Senate Council couldn't, but perhaps the faculty had concerns which
the Council was wholly unaware and that would be a way to eliminate the possibility. Pro—
fessor Olshewsky wanted to vote against the motion because of the way it was phrased. His
understanding was that the main bone of contention with the document was the student repre—
sentation and what he found offensive was polling the faculty and not the University Com-
munity. That might be the reason the students were upset about the reapportionment in the
first place. Professor Wiseman said it may be that eight and nine should be looked at to-

gether. He added that the reduction in the number of Senate committees might be the reason
why eight existed.

Professor Grimes said that as a member of the committee that helped to develop the
proposal there didn't seem to be enough problems around campus. Committees are not active,
but he felt there are some problems on campus that need to be addressed by the Senate Coun—
cil. He was in favor of the proposal. Professor Just said that he would speak against
the motion again by reminding everyone they are elected and if there were concerns, people
could come to a Senator, and he didn't see why a survey had to be taken or why the Senate
was out looking for problems.

The motion passed with a hand count of 66 to 65. Item eight reads as follows:


Annual faculty survey to identify issues for committee study

Add to the end of Senate Rule 4.0 Committees of the Senate: The Senate
Council shall survey the entire faculty in the Spring of each year to
identify the most pressing issues facing the University during the coming
year. The Senate Council shall evaluate the issues and, where appropri~
ate, assign them to standing committees. Any significant issue not within
the jurisdiction of one of the standing committees shall be referred to an
gg_hgg committee appointed by the Senate Council. Standing and §g_hgg
committees of the Senate shall have the privilege of presenting reports to
that body after review by the Senate Council, provided the report has

been appropriately circulated in advance.

In addition to issues generated by this faculty survey, the Senate Council
may identify other issues for committee study as a result of suggestions
by its members or by a student, faculty, or adminstrator at any time.



Committee members may also decide on issues for study by their own
committees if this work does not interfere with Senate Council assign-


The purpose of these additions is to generate more ideas for study by
Senate committees and to provide a means for any member of the Univer-
sity community to suggest issues deserving of attention.

Professor Schwert again recognized Professor Donald Ivey for a motion from the Senate
Council. Professor Ivey, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended adoption
of Item nine, Reduction in the Number of Senate Committees.

The floor was opened for discussion. Professor Gesund said that he was in favor of
the motion. However, he made an amendment not to abolish the committees of Student
Affairs and Teaching, Learning, and Advising. He felt it was inappropriate for the
University Senate not to have these committees because what was the University for if it
didn't have teaching, learning, advising and student affairs. He made a motion to amend
Item nine by having a standing committee called, Teaching, Learning, Advising and Student
Affairs. The motion was seconded.

Professor Bostrom asked the Vice President for Student Affairs about the committee.
Vice President Zumwinkle responded that in recent years the Committee on Student Affairs
had not been active. It was active about l970-l972. He added that the most significant
contribution since the comnittee was created was the development of the student code.
Professor Kemp said the Committee on Student Affairs did not meet during the last year

and had not met much in the previous years. That was the main reason for suggesting the
committee be deleted. Professor Gesund pointed out that what a comnittee accomplished was
largely the function of the chairman. He added it was inconceivable to him that a Univer-
sity Senate would not have a committee on student affairs. Student Senator Yeh wanted to
see freshman advising studied and urged support of Professor Gesund's amendment.

Professor Wiseman said he was chairman of the committee and felt it was an important
committee, but the structure was out of line because it was too much work for one com—
mittee. Professor Matthews said that if he understood the amendment, in order to prevent
the elimination of the two committees combine them. He wanted to know if there was
any rationale for doing this. Professor Gesund said that basically student affairs,
teaching, learning and advising are the areas the Senate is all about and the University
is all about with everything else being supportive. He saw no problem with a committee
covering a large area provided it had sufficient membership and organized into effective

Professor Canon spoke in favor of the amendment. He said it seemed to him the other
committees being considered for deletion were also related to teaching. He added that
he knew in the past the committees had not had a great deal to do but surely if six were
-combined into one, there would be enough to do. He supported the motion with the under—
standing they would be combined. Professor Rees said there was no doubt the chairman
of a committee could have a decisive influence on what a committee does or does not do.
He said the six committees were being deleted with the understanding they would be ad hoc
committees. One advantage would be that the charge of the committee to a great extent
applies to the bailiwick of the faculty in these areas. He said he favored a more
general way of studying the problems than what professor Gesund was suggesting.

The previous question was moved and passed. The motion to combine the two com-
mittees, Student Affairs and Teaching, Learning and Advising, was defeated with a hand


 count of 6l to 58.

Professor Moody moved to amend the motion by suggesting the current title of the
Committee on Teaching, Learning and Advising be restricted to include only advising and
this committee be retained as a standing committee of the Senate. The motion was

In the discussion which followed Professor Adelstein said that he believed the issue
was whether or not the Senate wanted to write into the Rules a special committee on
advising. He said the alternative to that would be to appoint ad hoc committees to deal
with different issues. He felt it was whether or not the Senate thought advising was
important and would continue to be germane for so many years. Dean Royster agreed with
Professor Adelstein and said it seemed to him the ad hoc situation gave much more flexi-
bility and provided for advising, teaching, and special programs. If the Senate were
going to conduct a survey each year, these issues would be raised and addressed as needed.
Professor Olshewsky said he heartily favored what Dean Royster was suggesting, but he
was afraid issues might “get buried” and never studied.

The amendment to retain a standing committee on advising failed.

The previous question was called and passed. The recommendation from the Senate
Council to reduce the number of committees passed and reads as follows:

Reduction in the Number of Senate Committees

Deletion of the following section of Senate Rules which establish
and describe the charges of the indicated standing committees:

Student Affairs

Teaching, Learning, and Advising

Special Teaching Programs ’

General Studies
3 Extended and Continuing Education Programs
4 Special Teaching Technologies



The Chairmen of these committees have been consulted and the work
done by the committees in past years has been reviewed. As a re—
sult, it is believed that these committees serve no significant
purpose and that future issues that might come within their pur-
view could best be handled by other standing committees or by the
appointment of ag_hgg committees.

Note: The Standing Committees to be retained and their suggested
new rule numbers are:

l Rules and Elections
2 Admissions and Academic Standards
3 Academic Facilities
4 Library
.5 Research
6 Academic Program
7 Academic Planning and Priorities
8 Academic Organization and Structure

- n n n u . o -
. s . . o u ‘



The Chair recognized Professor Donald Ivey for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Ivey, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended the adoption
of Item ten, Removal of Responsibility for Computer Facilities from Committee on
Academic Facilities.

In the discussion which followed Professor Smith said he found no where in the
proposed new rules where the Senate or any of its committees will have anything to do
with activities of computers. He said it struck him that one of the most powerful
forces in our society today was the computer. He would like to see the Senate continue
to provide input in that area. Professor Gesund felt the problem could be solved by
inserting the word "computers” on page 8 in the paragraph ”....such matters as class-
rooms, buildings and grounds, shops and other such real propety, audio-visual and
television equipment ..... “ Professor Smith accepted the addition and the committee
agreed that could be considered.

Item ten as amended to include ”computers” passed and reads as follows:

Add the following new Senate Rules: 4.l.3:


The Committee on Academic Facilities is charged with the responsibility
of providing information and recommendations to the Senate about the
alteration, construction, and allocation of all property and physical
facilities that may affect the educational objectives of the University.
In this regard, it shall be concerned about such matters as classrooms,
buildings and grounds, shops and other such real property, audio—visual
-and television equipment, computers, duplication and printing facilities,
vehicle pools, and scientific and musical instruments. The committee
shall act in these ways:

l. Serve the administration as a source of faculty information and
opinion about the need, design, and priority and construction or
renovation projects.

Inform the Senate at least annually about problems relating to

the alteration, construction, or allocation of academic facilities
and about future plans and priorities for them. Whenever necessary,
the Committee may initiate action by preparing a recommendation

to the administration, which should be routed through the Senate
Council for Senate approval.

Maintain communication with the appropriate administrators about
the current status and utilization of academic facilities.

Professor Schwert recognized Professor Donald Ivey for a motion from the Senate
Council. Professor Ivey, on behalf of the University Senate Council, urged the
immediate adoption of Item ll, Clarification of the Role of Ad Hoc Committees.

Item eleven which passed unanimously reads as follows:


Clarification of the Role of Ad Hoc Committees


Add the following to the Senate Rules: 4.3 Ad Hoc Committees: Other
than their temporary nature, ad hoc committees have the same status



and responsibilities as all other committees of the Senate. They
shall be appointed by the Senate Council to address academic pro-
blems and issues facing the University. For example, such com—
mittees could deal with problems or issues as they arise in the
areas of teaching and advising, student affairs, General Studies,
computer resources, continuing education, special teaching tech—
nologies and so forth.


Because of the proposed greater utilization of ad hoc committees,
it is believed helpful to clarify their role and to indicate areas
of possible