xt7jq23qzj2s https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7jq23qzj2s/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1984-12-10  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, December 10, 1984 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, December 10, 1984 1984 1984-12-10 2020 true xt7jq23qzj2s section xt7jq23qzj2s   


The University Senate met in regu1ar session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, December

10, 1984, in Room 106 of the C1assroom Bui1ding.
Robert Bostrom, Chairman of the Senate Counci1, presided.

Members absent: James App1egate, Char1es E. Barnhart, Jack C. B1anton,
James A. Bo1ing*, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Ray M. Bowen*, Danie1 J. Breazea1e*,
Thomas D. Brower, Stan1ey D. Brunn*, Ching Chow*, Henry Co1e*, George F.
Crewe*, Marcus Di11on, Richard C. Domek, Jr.*, Herbert Drennon, Nancy E. Dye*,
Pau1 M. Eakin, Anthony Eard1ey, Ni11iam Ecton, Char1es w. E11inger, Dona1d G.
E1y*, Char1es H. Fay, Gera1d Ferretti*, Ray Forgue*, Wi1bur Frye*, Richard N.
Furst, Art Ga11aher, Jr., Lester Go1dstein*, Andrew J. Grimes, Gina Ha11,
Lawrence Harris, Leonard He11er, Robert N. Hemken, Raymond Hornback, A1fred S.
L. Hu*, Chuck Huffman, Keith Johnson*, John J. Just, James 0. King, Laura L.
Ladd, James R. Lang, Robert Lawson, Beth Lewis, David Lowery, Edgar Maddox,
Pau1 Mande1stam*, Kenneth E. Marino, Sa11y S. Matting1y*, Martin J. McMahon,
Jr., H. Brinton Mi1ward, Kevin D. Moore*, Steven Nicho1son, Robert C. Nobe1,
C1ayton 0mvig*, Merri11 Packer*, Bobby C. Pass*, Leonard K. Peters, Janet
Pisaneschi, Robin D. Powe11, Madhira D. Ram*, Frank J. Rizzo*, Thomas C.
Robinson, Gera1d A. Rosentha1, Char1es Sachate11o*, Edgar Sagan, Timothy
Sineath, Otis A. Sing1etary*, John C. Snider, Marcia Stanhope*, Tom Stephens,
E1izabeth Tay1or*, Kenneth Thompson, Marc J. Wa11ace, O'Nei1 Weeks, Char1es T.
Methington, Caro1yn Ni11iams*

The Minutes of the Meeting of November 12, 1984, were approved as circu—

The Chairman made the fo11owing remarks:

“The first announcement is that Martha Ferguson is
no 1onger Martha Ferguson. As of November 24 she is Martha
Sutton. Congratu1ations and best wishes of a11 the senate,
I am sure, go with her and we are so p1eased.

The Senate Counci1 is current1y studying proposed re-
1axation of the ru1es concerning facu1ty members being
candidates for advanced degrees. A 1etter has been circu-
1ated to a11 department chairmen. One of the things the
Senate Counci1 is very interested in is whether or not
there exists on the University campus a 1arge number of
persons for which this wou1d make a big difference. Any
information that the senate members can furnish the
Senate Counci1 wou1d be most appreciated. You might re-
1ay that to your chairmen and direct it to the Senate
Office. We might get some ear1y action on that.

The Search Committee for the ombudsman has not yet
been comp1ete, a1though we do know that Dr. Kemp is the
chairperson and Dr. Brad1ey Canon wi11 be a member. As
soon as the other members are appointed, we wi11 get
underway with the search for an ombudsman. Dr. Kemp has
sent around a circu1ar asking for nominations. P1ease
put your mind to that.









Also, a reminder there will be no meeting in Janu-
ary. As you know, the semester does not begin in time
to allow a meeting. The next meeting will be in February.

If you did not get a lovely invitation in the mail,
please let me point out that tomorrow afternoon at the
Helen G. King Alumni House will be the annual end of the
semester social of the University Senate. The President
will be there and we hope you and your spouse will come
over and celebrate the end of the semester in style."

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Bradley Canon, Secretary of the
Senate Council, for a motion on the first action item on the agenda. Pro—
fessor Canon, on behalf of the Senate Council, recommended approval of the
proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section II, l.2, Timing of SEmes—
ters. The proposal was circulated to members of the senate under date of
November 30, l984. Professor Canon asked the senators to make a change on
the circulated proposed change that under a. Fall Semester, line three,
September 3 and 4 should be underlined and would read September g, 5, 5, 6,
7, .



Professor Malcolm Jewell, Chairman of the Subcommittee studying the
calendar change, was recognized to explain the rule change. Dr. Jewell's
remarks follow:

Professor Jewell's remarks follow:

”The basic problem we face is trying to crowd a full semes—
ter into the period from the end of the summer until the beginn—
ing of Christmas vacation. We have to start earlier in the summer
than we want to, or finish later in December than most of us want
to. That has always been a problem. What we have done for years
is that when Labor Day falls on September 5, 6 or 7 we start the
Wednesday before Labor Day. What we are proposing to deal with this
problem is to start a week earlier when Labor Day falls on September
3 or 4. In a sense the problem is Saturday but the problem really is
that the semester runs too late in the years when Labor Day falls on
the third or fourth. If we did not have Saturday exams, we would be
having exams as late as December 2l or 22. In order to cope with that
problem, we have been cheating a little bit by starting exams on Satur-
day using Friday as no classes for a study day. Nobody likes that
solution. This year we decided to see if there was any way to deal
With the problem. We immediately rejected the idea of shortening the
length of the semester which would run into the problem of accredi-
tation. The only solution obviously is to start the semester early.
The committee discussed the possibility that in those two years out
of seven when we have Saturday exams to start on Monday. It doesn't
get us out of exams much earlier and it would involve problems at
the beginning of school with the dorms opening on the weekends. We
dec1ded the only way to cope with this problem was to start classes
a full week early. When we do this we are getting out in those
years a full week early. The rule we are proposing does not ex—
plic1tly deal with what happens the Spring Semester following that



Fall Semester. The rules now provide for a gap of approximately
twenty—three days between the end of exams and the beginning of the
following semester. We did propose that this continue and that the
Spring Semester would start a week earlier in those years when the
Fall Semester is starting earlier. There seemed no point in
stretching out the Christmas break in those two years out of seven.
I want to make it clear that although the proposal does not ex—
plicitly address the Spring Semester, it is proposed in the
calendar to begin the Spring Semester a week early in those years.“

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. ,
Professor Thrailkill asked if the calendar on the last page of the proposal
was the present one or the proposed new calendar. Professor Jewell responded it
was the present one, but the dates at the bottom of page 2 would substitute for
the calendar that is on page 3 for those years. The calendar on page 3 was
simply copied from the Minutes of the Senate in l976 which described what is now
the status quo. By pushing things so late he felt a situation had been created
which increased the possibility of pressure from faculty and students to schedule
the exams the last week of classes. Dean Royster wanted to know if there were
any number of days required to have classes. Professor Jewell's understanding
was some colleges have that problem so the committee worked under the assumption
of not tinkering with the days. The committee's mandate was a limited one and
they did not take a look at the whole calendar. He said probably the only
realistic way was to start earlier in the summer.

The Chairman said the motion was from the Senate Council and required no
second. The floor was opened for debate on the motion.

Professor Neil's personal prejudice was that he liked the time in January
because it was valuable for research. Professor Jewell said the point was there
was no logic in deciding for two years out of seven to add an extra week to the
Christmas break. That would be the consequence if the Spring Semester was not
moved up a week. .

Dean Royster wanted to know if anyone had looked into whether the profes—
sional societies had changed their winter meetings to fit our calendar. Pro-
fessor Neil said that the American Physical Society customarily holds its spring
meeting the last week before final exams and that meeting would go into the
final exam week which would make it impossible to attend.

The Chairman said the motion was obviously amendable. The implication was
that the Spring Semester would continue to fall approximately 23 days after the
close of the Fall Semester. He added that if the senate accepted the motion the
Spring Semester would be moved forward approximately seven days.

Professor Harris wanted to know if it would pose any problems by moving
graduation up a week. He proposed an amendment to leave the Spring Semester
alone. The Chairman said the rule would have to be amended that on those parti-
Cular weeks the Spring Semester would start approximately 28 or 29 days after
the close of the Fall Semester.

The Chairman said that George Dexter from the Office of the Registrar had
pointed out another potential problem by delaying the start of the second











semester and that is having enough time for both summer sessions. Mr. Dexter
said under the proposed calendar Summer School would start on the 4th. The
following year would be an earlier time. Now we are beginning the Eight Week
Term the day following the Four Week whether it's a Thursday, Wednesday or
whatever. He felt the years they follow one another was the only potential for
problem and that would have to be worked out.

Professor Thrailkill was against the amendment and would like to see rather
than three and one—half weeks, four and one—half weeks and also get out earlier
in the Spring. He said the calendar might be changed to give four and one—half
weeks every Christmas. Students like getting out early in the Spring so they can
get the summer jobs._ He didn't see any reason for taking two out of seven years
and getting a longer Christmas break.

Student Government President, Tim Freudenberg, spoke against the amendment.
He said the students preferred having the extra week at the beginning of summer
rather than between the semesters as the time is too short to get a job or do
much constructive work. Another student said this was just two years out of
seven, and it seemed to him that any disruption should be minimized as much as
possible. He added if students were going to be given an extra week, the week
in summer would be appreciated more.

The Chairman said the gist of the amendment was that in those years when
the alteration took place instead of the twenty—three days the number would be
thirty days.

Professor Hasan moved to recommit the motion and amendment to the Senate
Council. The motion was seconded. Professor Jewell's understanding was that the
motion was not to take a fresh look at the spring but to refer the entire propo—
sal back to the committee for an entire review of the whole calendar. The
Chairman said that was the intent and Professor Jewell suggested appointing a
different committee.

Professor Kemp said the proposal had a good study by the sub-committee of
the Senate Council and he felt it was a waste of time to return it to the commit—
tee. Professor Canon seconded Professor Kemp's remarks and said he did not know
what it was the senate wanted the committee to study that had not already been
done. '

The previous question was moved and seconded.

The motion to recommit the proposal and amendment to the Senate Council was

. Dean Royster raised the point that there seemed to be a great deal of
discussion about carrying out the professional and undergraduate programs at the
University but not much consideration to the graduate programs. He said there
was a disadvantage of having the Spring Semester end early with scheduling and
exams for people who were receiving their Ph.D. degrees. Professor Ivey said
there were the same number of days in the semester.

The motion to change the timing of the Fall Semester failed.




The motion on the proposal which was presented by the Senate Council passed
unanimously and reads as follows:

Proposal: (underlined portion new; delete bracketed portion)

l.2 Timing of Semesters

a. Fall Semester
When Labor Day falls on September l[,] 9r_2[,3, or 4,]
classes will start on the Wednesday before Labor Day.
When Labor Day falls on September a, 5, 5, 6, or 7,
classes will start on the Wednesday l2 days before
Labor Day. The last day of classes will be on a Fri—
day. [except on years when Labor Day is September
3 or 4, when the last class day will be a Thursday.]
Examinations will run for 5 days, [normally] Monday
through Friday.







The University operates under a long-term calendar policy,
adopted by the Senate in l976. There has been criticism of
the fact that this year the schedule provides for final
examinations on Saturday.

The attached table, taken from the minutes of the Senate
meeting when the policy was adopted, shows when classes be-
gin and end, and when exams are scheduled, for each possi—
ble calendar year (with Labor Day occurring from September
l thrOugh 7).

The problem is to finish final exams at least a few days
before Christmas without beginning classes unreasonably
early in August. We have followed a practice of starting
classes on a Wednesday, with Monday and Tuesday being

used for late registration and add—drop. When Labor Day
comes early enough (September l-4) classes begin the Wednes—
day before Labor Day. When Labor Day is later (September
5-7), we start classes a week earlier (l2 days before Labor
Day instead of 5 days before). The last day of final exams
ranges from December l6—2l.

The normal policy for final exams (fall and spring) is to
finish classes on a Friday, schedule nothing on the week—
end (counting Saturday as the dead day) and run exams on

the following Monday through Friday. As the table shows,
Saturday exams only occur in the fall (not the spring), and
only on the two years in the cycle when classes begin at the
latest time: August 29 and 30. In those years classes end
on Thursday; Friday is the dead day; and exams are held on
Saturday and then Monday through Thursday. If the normal
Monday-Friday final exam schedules were followed in those
years, the last day of finals would be December 2l and 22.
(For example, this year students would be taking examinations
on Friday, immediately before the fouruday Christmas week-







end.) The purpose and result of the Saturday exams is to
move up the date of the last final by one day in the years
when it would be latest.

Holding final exams on Saturday creates a number of problems
for students, which have become evident this year, including
giving students only one free day before the first day of
finals, instead of a week-end to organize studying for the
week of finals.

In revising the schedule for years when we now have Saturday
classes, we should follow several principles:

l. Avoid scheduling final exams on Saturday, for the
reasons stated above.

2. Avoid shortening the number of class days, because
of the variety of problems that might result, in—
cluding accrediting difficulties.

3. Avoid moving the date of the last final exam to any
later time. Late final exams create genuine problems
for students wanting to spend the Christmas holidays
with their families, particularly those traveling by
plane. They also force faculty and the staff of the
Registrar's office to handle exams and grades very
late, even literally on Christmas Eve. Moreover the
later we schedule final exams, the greater temptation
there will be for faculty to hold their exams in the

last few days of classes rather than at the scheduled

The Senate Council recommends that in the two cycles when
Saturday exams are scheduled, classes begin a week earlier.
The schedule in those years would be as follows:

Year: Labor Day lst Class Day Last Class Day Final Exams


84/90 S—3 W—Aug. 22 , F—Dec. 7 D-lO — D—l4

89 3-4 W—Aug. 23 F-Dec. 8 D—ll — D-l5

The obvious disadvantage of this is that we would be starting
earlier in August, cutting into possible vacation time. The
obvious advantage is that we would not be crowding into
Christmas vacation; thus we might reduce the pressure to hold
exams earlier than they should be scheduled. Under this plan,
in no cycle would any exams be scheduled later than December 20.

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Bradley Canon, Secretary of the
Senate Council, for a motion. Professor Canon, on behalf of the Senate Council,
recommended the proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section 1., 2.2.3
Ex 0ff1c1o Membership. The proposal was circulated to members of the senate
under date of December 3, l984. Professor Canon said the reason for the pro—
posal was that it was a good idea to have the Director of the Honors Program as
an ex offiCio member because a great deal of the senate's actions concerned the







Honors Program. The Chairman pointed out that in the second sentence of the
proposal the word System should be deleted. He also said the senate was not the
final word on the motion. If approved, the proposal would be sent to the Admin—
istration for study and recommended to the Board of Trustees.

Professor Altenkirch wanted to know why the proposal mentioned vice presi—
dents. The Chairman said there were still a few. Dr. Sears said in the version
that would be acted upon by the Board the word other would be eliminated, but
there are still two vice presidents.

The proposal concerning membership of the Director of the Honors Program
passed unanimously and reads as folloWs:

Proposal: (underlined portion new)4

I. 2.2.3 Ex Officio Membership

Non—Voting: .
The ex officio non—voting membership shall include the

President, all vice presidents, University Registrar,
Dean of university Extension, Dean of Students, Pro-
fessor of Military Science, Professor Aerospace Studies,
and if they are not already elected members of the
Senate, the University System faculty members of the
Board of Trustees, the Academic Ombudsman, the Director
of the Honors Program, and the chairmen of the University
Senate Committees, including University Senate Advisory
Committees. All officials mentioned in the preceding
paragraph who are not voting ex officio members in any
years shall be considered non- voting ex officio members.
Other ex officio non— voting members may be added by the
University Senate Council for the purpose of supplying
information and viewpoints on problems considered by the
Senate. Ex officio non- voting members shall enjoy all
privileges of the elected membership except the right to
vote. (U :lO/l2/8l and BOfT: 4/6/82)



The Senate often considers matters relating directly and
indireCtly to the HonOrs Program. In addition, the Honors
Program has direct and indirect influence on a wide— ranging
group of academic policies. The presehce of the Director
of the Honors Program would be of great benefit to Senate

Professor Pival was recognized for a report of the Joint FacultyAdministra—
tion ad hoc Committee on Faculty Alternatives. The report was circulated under
date of November 28, l984 to members of the senate.

Professor Pival's remarks follow:
”The main charge of the committee was to recommend faculty

options in two categories. First, those that might be imple—
mented as a permanent part of a benefit package and those that










might be put into effect if the University's financial situation
worsens. From the beginning, the committee had to look at options
both from the standpoint of making them a permanent part of the
benefit package and from what might happen overnight or within

a month or two if we had a sudden terrible financial situation.

I think the schizoid personality of the committee's charge is re—
flected somewhat in the report and for that, I apologize.

We recognized early on that there were some special problems
in considering early retirement plans at the University of Kentucky
which other universities might not have. I would like to outline
those because they were not discussed at great length in the re—
port. A large number of faculty members at UK are under the old
plan. That means, for you young people who haven‘t been around
here too long, there are a number of people on campus who started
on an older plan of retirement and when we changed to TIAA—CREF,
these people who were transferred to that still retain certain
rights under the old plan. This means that all faculty who reach
the age of 65 on or before June 30, l989,-and who currently have
twenty years of service still have rights under the minimum bene—
fits provision of the old change of assignment plan. This situa-
tion will necessitate a different approach to early retirement for
faculty members under that plan from that approach used for people
who are only on TIAA—CREF. Those of you who might be interested in
how long this is going to go on, it will continue until June 30, l997
or until all of the people are dead, whichever comes first. Also,
these people are in effect captives of the age 65 rule although there
may be some possibilities for changing that so they can retire prior
to 65. For that reason we decided to develop options primarily de—
signed for faculty members not on the old program but to make the
plans broad enough and general enough that early retirement for
people on the old plan might be negotiated Within their context.
For that reason we did not follow the models of some of the retire—
ment plans we got from other universities, which were highly de-
tailed. Instead, we felt it would be better to suggest general
plans so that individual situations could be negotiated.

Secondly, the administrative regulations have to be amended
to permit early retirement with continued benefits for all except
those taking early retirement for medical reasons. Under the pre—
sent regulations we can retire, as far as TIAA—CREF is concerned,
almost anytime. We can retire with almost any kind of condition
that we want to. The problem is if we retire from the University
early, we, in effect, quit, thus losing the health benefits and
TIAA—CREF premiums, etc. that might be accrued if we worked a bit
longer. In order to implement any kind of early retirement plans
there are going to have to be some changes in the administrative
regulations which are pointed out on page six of the report. We
dld not try to reword these regulations, although we did suggest
rewording in some other areas. We simply identified the adminis—
trative regulations that would need amendment.

I want to point out that the key word in all of the plans,
whether they involve early retirement or whether they involve
change of status With the faculty is voluntary. All the plans

 recommended must be administered on a voluntary basis. The fac—
ulty member has to request such a change or be in agreement with
such a change and any early retirement must be negotiated between
the retiree and the administration. Because our present regula-
tions really discourage early retirement, we felt we needed to
look at that problem first. On page five, number one, that means
that a person who started at the University at the age of 28 could
retire at age 58 or one who started at 30 could retire at 60 and
so forth. In the second one, anybody between the ages of 55 to
65——if we adopted this definition and set up plans to follow this
definition—-could retire after ten years of service at the Univer—
sity. , ~

To summarize, under plan A the main reason we have 62 as
the lower limit is that to make it any lower than 62 would be much
more costly to the University and would make it impossible to
implement the plan at all. We wanted a plan that could be imple—
mented almost immediately. Plan A could be used as a long—term
part of the benefit package or in times when the University has to
phase out a program or department and has to do something about the
faculty members. The difference between this and what we now have
is that the TIAA—CREF premiums would continue until age 65 along
with health and life insurance benefits.‘ '

The second plan, which would require long—range financial
planning both on the part of the University and the faculty mem—
ber, could apply to retirement at the age of 55. Under this plan,
our recommendation is that TIAA—CREF premiums would continue
at the rate of the retirement year and the health benefits
would continue until age 65.

Under the third one, phased retirement plans, one could
retire a little at a time. In part—time retirement, the faculty
member would be given the option of working half or quarter time
on a half or quarter time salary and using the retirement annuity
to make up the difference. One advantage of this would be that
the retiree would then continue to get the benefit of the cost—of—
living raise and the subsequent benefit from the TIAA—CREF premiums.

Secondly, another option we felt might be offered is guar—
anteed extra assignments. Guaranteed may be-a strong word. The
retiree would have to realize that this option would have to be
contracted on an individual basis, depending upon departmental or
college needs.- We couldn't envision a situation in which there'
would be guaranteed extra assignments if the department was being
phased out or if they were hiring no part—time teachers that
semester. Thus, this option could not be available to everyone
who might request it.

Also, retirement research is not feasible for everyone-—only for
those people who were able to obtain research grants. In some years
the University might not have available facilities.

None of these proposals are set in stone and will have to be
kept flexible. The committee tried not to make any proposals or recom—












mendation that could be used in the future in an abusive way against
the faculty.“

The floor was opened for questions and discussion.

Professor McEllistrem's understanding was if faculty members retired after
sixty—five, they could use grants from the University. Professor Pival said
that was right, and the reason the committee developed the benefit was it was
already available and the committee was recommending expanding those options.
Professor McEllistrem wanted to know if the retirement options could operate
between the age of 65 and 70 as well as between 62 and 65. Professor Pival felt
the question was good and said the committee in making their report had to
operate on the asumption that 65 is the ”normal” retirement age. She felt the
committee would have to be careful in making any kind of final determination.

Professor Neil wanted to know if A and B were identical except for the age
which one would retire. Professor Pival said they were much the same except for
the difference in age and in Plan A of receiving a lump sum annuity. A disadvan—
tage is that the retiree is penalized by losing the normal increase in TIAA—CREF
premiums and the accrued interest on those payments.

Dean Baer said the reference was on accrued interest on increments the
faculty member would have received during the next three years had they not

Professor Thrailkill said TIAA was generally happy to start paying annuities
immediately upon retiring because if a retiree activated annuities at 62, one
might get eighty-five to ninety percent of what the amount would be at sixty—
five. He wondered about a reduction and if the University could do something to
supplement the TIAA reduced annuity. Bruce Miller from University Personnel
said that if a person retired at 64, he/she would draw ten to twelve percent

less or if the retiree waited until 66 the annuity would be ten to twelve percent

Professor Pival felt what the committee tried to do was recommend plans
that would be feasible to the University and under present economic problems the
committee could not ask for substantial reimbursement. She thought if a faculty
member took early retirement they would have to take the losses. The committee
tried to minimize the losses as much as possible.

Professor Rea said several years ago one of the proposals on the part of
the University was based on the fact that most people retiring were full pro—
fessors. Therefore, if three professors retired, two assistant professors might
be hired to teach the same amount of courses with less salary. Professor Pival

felt this was true, but the situation now is the University wants to retire
people for economic reasons.

Dean Baer, in response to Professor Rea's comments, felt in a large part
that was why the phase plan was written as a third option for faculty members
who wanted to ”have their cake and eat it too.” Many times the retired pro—
fessors might not draw on their pension until age 65. Professor Pival felt one
of the great things about the possibility of early retirement was the tremendous
fleXibility and each one could almost design his/her own retirement plan.
Professor Jewell's understanding was that the committee was dealing primarily
w1th faculty younger than 60. He said it seeemed to him if the proposal was to


be adopted by the senate as a recommendation to the administration, it ought to
be made clear that such a proposal includes the idea of phased retirement plan

between 65 and 70. He said the University faces some serious problems if a lot
of faculty members were to continue to teach until 70 at full—time. He said it
would save financially and some of the people should not be teaching full—time.

Professor Pival did not see any reason why the committee could not amend
the report to take that into account. She said the report was not in its final
stage because there were certain amendments to be made from the administration.

Professor Neil wanted to know what “adjustment retirement pension annuity”
meant. Professor Pival said if one wanted to go on phased retirement and con-
tinue teaching half time, then the University would pay for half of the salary.
The faculty member would decide what he/she wanted to take out of the retirement
annuity to make up the difference. Professor Thrailkill wanted to know if that
would be possible with TIAA—CREF to take out any amount. Professor Pival said
they had checked that out before making the final report. Mr. Miller said each
retirement contract which a faculty member had TIAA would allow them to par—
tially activate that contract to whatever extent the faculty member desired. He
added that TIAA was advocating that retirees not activate more of their annuity
than they needed so that the balance would continue to accrue interest and
therefore would enhance their ultimate benefit down the road.

Professor Neil wanted to know if fringe benefits meant health and life
insurance only and not retirement. “For instance, would any of the half—time
salary go into TIAA,“ he asked. Mr. Miller said that was something which could
be agreed upon one way or another. Dr. Sears said the University would not make
a contribution after age 65. Professor Pival said that was a point which needed
to be clarified, and the committee would work on it before the senate took a

There were no further questions, and the meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.

George M. Dexter
Secretary to the Senate