xt7k0p0wt623 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7k0p0wt623/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1980-09-08  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 8, 1980 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, September 8, 1980 1980 1980-09-08 2020 true xt7k0p0wt623 section xt7k0p0wt623 UNlVERSlTY OF KENTUCKY


August 26, 1980

Members, Unive risity Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday, September 8,
1980 at 3:00 p.m. in Room CB106.


University Senate. Minutes, May 5, 1980.

Memorial Resolutions.

Action Items:

a) Proposal to establish a restricted enrollment policy
for the College: of Business and Economics (circulated
under date of August 26, 1980).
Proposed revisions and request for permanent status of
the Bachelor of General Studies degree. If adopted,

Fall Semester, 1980 is the proposed implementation date.
(Circulated under date of August 25, 1980).

Elbert W. Ockerman


Note: If you are unable to attend this meeting, please call Ms. Martha
Ferguson (7—2958) in the Registrar's Office.

NOTE: Whenever possible, amendments or motions relative to agenda items
on the floor of the Senate for action should be presented to the presiding officer
in writing by the person(s) proposing said amendments or motions prior to the
opening of the Senate meeting.




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, September 8,
1980, in Room 106 of the Classroom Building.

George W. Schwert, Presiding

Members absent: M. I. H. Aleem*, Charles T. Ambrose, Charles E. Barnhart, Brack A.
Bivins*, Leslie Bingham*, William H. Blackburn, Jack Blanton, James A. Boling*, Joseph T.
Burch, Ralph Christensen*, Donald B. Clapp, D. Kay C1awson*, Georgia Collins*, J. Donald
Coonrod, Emmett R. Costich*, Charles Cunningham*, Stephen T. DeMers, George Denemark*,
David E. Denton*, Philip A. DeSimone, Richard C. Domek*, Joseph M. Dougherty, John Drake*,
Anthony Eardley, Lee A. Elioseff, Paul G. Forand*, Art Gallaher, John H. Garvey*, Jon P.
Gockerman, George W. Gunther*, Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hasan*, Virgil W. Hays*, Carl E.
Henrickson*, Raymond R. Hornback, John J. Just, David T. Kao*, Gwendolen Lee*, Thomas P.
Lewis*, Nancy Loomis, Paul Mandelstam*, Tim Mann, Sally S. Matting1y*, Marion E. McKenna*,
George E. Mitche11,Jr. John M. Mitchell, Philip J. Noffsinger*, Deborah E. Powe11*, David
Proffitt, Diane Raggard, E. Douglas Rees*, Frank J. Rizzo*, Robert W. Rudd, Ronald J.
Seymour*, Chris Shaw, Harry A. Smith, John T. Smith, Harold H. Traurig*, Mark Vickers*, M.
Stanley Wall, James H. Wells, J. Robert Wills, H. David Wilson, Patch G. Woolfolk*, Robert
G. Zumwinkle*

The minutes of the meetings of April 14, 1980, and May 5, 1980, were approved as

The Chairman said that a formal introduction of President Singletary was not necessary
but in his dual role as President of the University and President of the Senate, he would
address the Senate at the beginning of the new school year.

President Singletary spoke to the Senate as follows:

"Rest assured that 1 am not going to give an "address", but I do
believe there are a few things that need to be said at the opening of
the new school year. First of all, I want to welcome you back for yet
another year and to say it is good to have you back on campus.

Obviously, one piece of information overshadows all others as we
open this school year and that is the business that happened during the
summer while many of you were gone which was the substantial reduction in
the budget of the University. Let me review it very briefly. Those of
you who were here certainly knew about it and those of you who have come
back have probably had enough interest to find out at least how it might
affect you. This all began with the State's realization that it was go—
ing to under—realize revenue to the tune of something approaching 114 million
dollars in the general fund. In other words, they were not going to
collect as much revenue in the general fund as was anticipated. They
moved within two weeks of the beginning of this fiscal year to make the
necessary cuts to bring spending in line with income projections. With—
out stating too many numbers, let me say that when all the dust settled
the levy against the University of Kentucky was 11.2 million dollars.
There were two pieces of the 11.2 million dollar reduction. One portion
of it, and it ran close to 5 million dollars, was a permanent reduction
of the base of the University's operating budget, recurring dollars, in
other words. The rest of it was made up of any non—recurring funds that
we might locate and use for that purpose. When we were given this de—
lightful news, we were also told that by the next Friday we should tell

*Absence explained



them how we were to do this. Consequently, we did not have a lot of

time to make that reduction. We did not have any time to weigh whether
we would close entire units of the Institution. When y0u are talking
about that kind of money, that becomes a very real possibility. We ended
up, because of the amount of dollars involved and the time limitation, in
a very concentrated week's effort trying to decide how to do this and

how to do it with the least permanent damage to this Institution. This
is not an easy formula. One simply cannot take ll million dollars out of
this Institution without creating a great deal of shock in the system.

It is by far the largest reduction ever made by an Institution in the
State, and it certainly has precipitated what is the greatest financial
crisis in my time at the University of Kentucky. Nonetheless, it's here
and it's real.

I would like to tell you very briefly what we have done. We made
the hard decision first——we wanted to protect two categories if we
could. The first thing was that we did not wish to lay off a single
full—time person. The second thing we decided was not to tamper with
the salaries that we had already paid. The "Catch 22” there was that
80 percent of the money they gave us was for salary increase. This is
a people—intensive business, as you know. We had made those commitments
and delivered those dollars and two weeks into that fiscal year we were
asked to cut back a substantial amount of money. Aside from whatever
legal questions that might have been raised we did not feel we should
take it in salary dollars. We believe the greatest need this Institution
has is faculty and staff salaries. What that did mean is that everything
else in the Institution was up for grabs, if we were going to protect
those two things——people in full—time positions and salaries.

Very briefly let me tell you that we also took 5.5 million dollars
out of various renovation, capital contruction projects which had been
funded out of savings within the Institution. Those dollars were in
accounts in Frankfort. Those projects had either been approved or were
in the process of being approved and the first thing they did was
to freeze all capital contruction and all renovation projects in the
Institution. We took half of what we needed from the capital construc—
tion fund. We cancelled and siphoned off the dollars from something in
excess of fifty projects in the system. If they were to lift the
freeze tomorrow, those fifty plus projects are dead. We still have
some projects frozen that EEE funded and I am hopeful that somewhere in
the relatively immediate future they are going to unfreeze some of those
more pressing ones. It is the same old game——the longer they keep them
frozen, the more it is going to cost us to do them. Since they are
funded, it is my position that they should go on and let us do what we
can with the limited resources we have. In any event, we've lost a
significant number of capital construction projects that will result
in further deterioration in the physical plan of the University.

In addition, we had to take the drastic measure of freezing unfilled
positions. All positions which become vacant, faculty and staff, will
be considered as vacant and will not be filled unless a particular case
is approved on an exception basis. That is probably the most serious
impact we will feel through the year and the future. In addition to that,
we took something like a million plus dollars out of the budget that we
had hoped to allocate among the colleges for research equipment, and we
have frozen all acquisitions for equipment that were not already on
order or for which an obligation had been established. The net result



of that will hurt still further our research capability inside this
Institution. In other words, none of these things can be done without
there being a definite impact that is adverse. Beyond that we have cut
travel by twenty percent for out—of—state and ten percent in—state.

We have cut the budget everywhere, in effect. Although I do not expect
you to be happy about the consequences, I at least want you to remember
that the basic decision was that we were going to take those cuts in
order to protect salaries and positions. That is the critical point

of the whole exercise up to now.

Now in terms of internal operations of the University, the most
distressing thing to me up to now is that there have been several in—
stances where otherwise able, delightful, responsible people have come
to me and in effect said, "Surely yOu didn't mean me.” Surely we do mean
you and all of you. We mean everybody. I want to say to you that there
can be no person, no department, no college, no program, that is going
to stand aside from this. We have stripped all the reserves we can lay
our hands on in this Institution, and we are down now to where there
is little left to squeeze. The real consequence is yet to be felt. As
it stands right now, we will begin the next fiscal year with a five
million dollar reduction in our operating budget, That's critical. I
do not want to dwell on it now, but that fact is going to permeate our
lives in the immediate future. We are not going to be able to do a lot
of things, large and small, that we have done in the past. I urge
you as responsible members of this faculty, staff, and study body
to understand the seriousness of this.

Unfortunately this is a dismal message but it is one that none
can stand aside from. The impact of it is going to be felt everywhere
on the campus. I think you should not only know about it, but also
discuss it with your colleagues on campus. Faculty members can be mar-
velously indifferent to this kind of thing until the bite comes in an
area that is of particular interest to them. I believe that you as
elected leaders of this faculty ought to feel some obligation to help
us make this known, to make it understood. I urge you to give us that
assistance. So much for the budget.

Another interesting development over the summer (one that was
probably more important to me than to you) is the fact that the Presi—
dents were removed from the Council on Higher Education. I will des-
cribe that to you as a mixed blessing. I will confide this to you
that attending the meetings of the Council on Higher Education did not
rank high on my list of entertainments or stimulating experiences. I
will say there were lots of times when I felt I could be somewhere else
doing something else with probably no great loss. The disturbing part
about it though, and my only concern, is that the removal of the Presi—
dents from the Council on Higher Education comes at a time when both
the membership in the Council and the Authority of the Council is
being strengthened. It moves us yet another step toward the kind of
centralization of authority and to a further weakening of the role of
our own governing board, the Board of Trustees. I have always opposed
that. I have never thought well of centralization in this area, and
I am satisfied that the more you move to a central governing board the
more likely you are to get everything done by formula, where nobody
has to make any judgments. You just see what the formula cranks out,
and the net result is there is an overall lowering of quality, in the
institutions. I have always argued, and it does offend a lot of



people, that there is a difference between the University of Kentucky

and any other public institution in this State. While I have never been
able to get anybody to seriously understand that message, I will tell

you that the University is the one possibility in this State to have an
institution of significant quality. We are still going to have a Council
of Presidents. How it is going to be used either by the Council staff

or by the Chairman himself is not known at this point. I do detect some
willingness on their part to still have some information before them, in—
forming them of our concerns.

There are some internal personnel matters that I think will also
be of interest to you. You may remember that Dr. Cochran has given
us a letter stating his intention to retire at the end of this year.
We did appoint a Search Committee, and that Search Committee has made a
recommendation, and I have taken that recommendation to the Board of
Trustees. Dr. Art Gallaher, former Dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences, has been named as Vice President Designate. He is in the
office with Dr. Cochran on a sort of leave status from Arts and Sciences,
and we are going on with the search for a Dean in Arts and Sciences.
I met this morning with one Search Committee and will meet tomorrow
with another. We will be conducting searches for deans of two very im—
portant colleges. I mentioned Arts and Sciences; the other is Business
and Economics. Bill Ecton has asked to be relieved of his duties at
the end of this calendar year, and we agreed to do that with apprecia—
tion for his service here. The committee is at work, but it will be
difficult to meet that timetable. Don Sands, Chemistry, is serving
as Acting Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. If you have not
already discovered it or met the gentleman, we have Dr. Gary Huber V

on campus, the new Director of the Tobacco and Health Research Insti—
tute. We are pleased to have him.

One other thing I would say is that the law has been changed
(which means the Governing Regulations will have to be changed) having
to do with our Trustees. The Community Colleges are going to have
faculty representation on the Board of Trustees for the first time by
law. That procedure is at work now in the Community Colleges. They
are selecting their Trustee representative, and that person will be
known to us very shortly.

You do know, I am sure, Professor Wagner has been elected to the
Board of Trustees as faculty representative succeeding Professor
Adelstein whose term expired and who chose not to seek reelection.
You were well represented by Mike, and I can assure you that y0u will
continue to be well represented. The other faculty Trustee is Connie
Wilson in Social Professions.

Let me say a word or two about the Southern Association Self—
Study. It occurs to me that there are a lot of people in this room
who were not here eleven years ago when we went through the last
Self-Study. It is a requirement of the Southern Association of Schools
and Colleges that every institution go through this every ten years.

We are into it again. I took the authorizing resolution to the Board
of Trustees back in the summer, and they have approved our going on
with the process. We have met with the officials of the Southern
Association. They have been here on campus, and we have given them


 a rough calendar about our plans for the study. What I want to
remind those of you who have been here before (and those of you who
have not) is that it is a huge undertaking. We will go through this
for about a year and a half. The team will finally come here, prob-
ably in December or the fall about a year from now. The Self—Study
involves basically every department, college, and activity on campus.
It is important because it provides us with an opportunity to take a
look at ourselves and to see what we are doing and what we should be
doing. It is a dynamic process, one that requires an enormous amount
of work. We have been fortunate enough to persuade Paul Sears to
serve as Director of this which means that it will be well done. We
are in the process now of having our basic policy committee in place.
We have set aside persons to do key things in the study. I believe

I am right in that Dr. Sears has named eleven or more committees that
will look at particular aspects and report them to the visitation team.
Unfortunately, I can already tell you what the outcome will be. The
outcome will be that every special interest that has an accreditation
representative will say that things are generally all right, but that
you "will need to put more money in our area.” That is what they always
say. The exercise is a good one. It is important, and I urge you

to cooperate in all the ways you can. Many of you have already res—
ponded to our invitation to serve on committees. I encourage you as
faculty and staff to take an interest in that. It is very important
to the Institution.

There is one other footnote that will be of interest to you.
Since we met last year on this occasion, we have changed the retire—
ment age for faculty from 65 to 70. The normal retirement age is
still 65, the mandatory retirement is 70. We took the recommendation
to the Board of Trustees, a recommendation that was dictated pretty
much by the economic facts of our time. You can argue about the
policy, but you can't argue about what is happening to the profession.
Several persons who were retired under that policy have been allowed
to unretire. It looks as though about half who have reached 65 de—
cided to retire and the other half decided to continue. There is no
clear pattern as yet. The impact of that decision ought to be very
clear, however. As more and more people opt for the five extra years,
you will see the impact on the numbers and percentages of our tenured
faculty. There is no question about that. At the other end of the
scale, there will be fewer opportunities, even after the freeze is
lifted, for young faculty members to enter into this profession.

I have a few additional comments about enrollments. This always
interests me because no matter what the public perceives and no
matter what the politicians decide, the students continue to come to
this University, and I am happy to report that. I think you are
responsible for that. The enrollment here on the Lexington campus
is likely to be up between two and three percent based on the pre—
liminary figures. They will change over the next several weeks with
adds, drops, cancellations, and late registration. All those things
will alter the figures. It will probably be early October before we
publish some final figures, but these estimates will indicate that we
will have something like 23,500 bodies here on the Lexington campus.
The entering freshman enrollment is up nearly two percent. This
year's class is the largest that has ever entered the University.



Black enrollments are up in our preliminary estimates by a gratifying
figure of eighteen percent. The figures would indicate that we have
somewhere between 750 and 800 black students, which is the largest
group we have ever had. If we are moving slowly, at least we are
moving in the right direction. Female enrollments are increasing at
a rate roughly double the increase of male enrollments. This year

we estimate the total enrollments at the University to be forty—eight
percent female. This is a continuation of the trend that has been
going on for several years. Five years ago it was something like
forty-four percent of the total. Enrollments inside the Colleges need
not be dwelt on. Arts and Sciences are up eight percent, Business
and Economics up seven percent, Communications up nineteen percent.
Allied Health, Education, and Home Economics are down. The other
colleges and Graduate School are maintaining the same posture they
had last year. You must remember that last year's high school
graduating class was very large in Kentucky. I think another possi—
bility is the impact of the economy. Initially, when there is eco—
nomic distress, enrollments tend to increase for awhile. I think you
will find enrollments up all over Kentucky. You might find them up
all over the country. In spite of it all, this place continues to

be attractive to a lot of young people in this State. I congratulate
you for that. I believe these students understand that, whatever our
shortcomings and limitations, the best place to get an education in
this State is the University of Kentucky.

One other comment and since good news comes hard, I deliberately
saved this for last. I hope within the month to announce the largest
single gift ever made from private funds to this University for an
academic purpose. It could not come at a better time. I do not know
about your morale, but mine is sagging. I'm not at liberty to say any-
more about it now, but it pleases me very much to tell you that I think
it is settled, and we have now to work out the details of the announcement.
It is another significant stride in terms of private support for this
University. I believe this gift will make it possible for us to improve
our situation in at least one area, and the time could not have been

That is what I have to say to you at this informal roundup of good
news and bad news for the University of Kentucky. I do welcome you back.
One thing that ought to bind us all together in this place is some con—
viction about the importance of what we do in terms of how we have chosen
to make our living and spend our lives. I believe good things are still
possible here. We are having a tough time in terms of resources, and
nobody can give you too much encouragement as to our fiscal problem. On
the other hand, universities are very durable institutions. More im—
portant than that, they are profoundly important to this society. I think
that is what sustains us. If the teaching and research we do here, the
services we perform, were to disappear tomorrow morning, Kentucky would
be a noticeably poorer State. I thank ygg for that. Thank you very much.”

Chairman Schwert recognized Professor Marjorie Stewart who presented the following
Memorial Resolution on the death of Professor William Norman Manhoff.



William Norman Manhoff, 1938—1980

His name was not universally recognized at the University.
Had he had more time with us it would have been. Midway
through only his fourth semester he was forced from the class—
room by terminal illness.

Bill Manhoff came to the University in the Fall of 1978
as an Associate Professor in the College of Home Economics,
Department of Human Environment: Design. His reputation pre—
ceded him. He was an eminently successful space planner—
interior designer in Chicago who discovered 18 years after
graduating from college that what he really wanted to do was

After graduating from Pratt Institute in Brooklyn in
1960 with a Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree, he picked the famil—
iar professional career of design graduates. But the particu—
lar path he chose was not well—worn. In eight short years he
co—founded a space planning and interior design firm in Chicago
that earned a national reputation. His firm's client list is a
Who's Who in American business and industry. An executive vice
president and responsible for overall operations with direct
management responsibility, Bill reached the pinnacle of his
profession in the 1970's.

Like many respected professionals, he was invited to
college campuses to lecture, then to teach part time. He held
such positions at two colleges and one design institute in
Chicago. His interest in teaching developed into a passion.
In 1978 Bill Manhoff made a decision. He wanted to be an edu-
cator . . . full time. This decision was a measure of his
unusualness. In a profession where the ultimate goal is
association with a major design firm, Bill Manhoff represented
the reverse. He left a financially rewarding team concept/
design association of more than 50 persons to work with the
University's concept/design education team of 6 persons.

And from that first class in August of 1978, he loved
every minute of it. He had a new dedication and purpose. He
was a demanding teacher, stretching the imaginations of design
majors to the point that their dedication to the profession had
to match his. His classes were bereft of those who were strangers
to sacrifice.

This zeal was not limited to the classroom: he did nothing
halfway. He started jogging in early 1979 and before the year was
out ran in and finished the New York Marathon. A ventriloquist,
Bill took "Fingers,” his spider, to a world convention of ventrilo—
quists to learn from the masters. He once entered a contest on a
design of low—cost furniture and his winning entry is now part of
a permanent collection at the Smithsonian Institution.



Bill Manhoff drew strength from his family — his wife Diane,
daughter Jackie, who will enter Pratt Institute this fall, and son
Chris, a ninth grade honor student.

For nearly two years, Bill Manhoff was a vital part of the
design faculty. He made a major contribution to a still-growing
department that will be long remembered. He was one of the nation's
most knowledgeable space organizers—designers; and the University,
the Department of Human Environment: Design, and the students are
richer today because he chose to share with us.

(Prepared by Rex Bailey, Director of Annual Giving, Office of Development)

Chairman Schwert directed that the Resolution be made a part of these minutes and
that copies be provided to members of the family. The Senators were asked to stand for
a moment of silence in tribute and respect to Professor William Norman Manhoff.

Chairman Schwert recognized Professor Donald Ivey to deliver, on behalf of the
Senate Council, a Resolution in a different tone and setting. Professor Ivey said that
every year the Senate Council paid tribute to the departing chairperson. It didn't
make any difference whether they had done a good job or not. He said that Joseph Krislov
had done a "bang up" job as Chairman of the Senate and Senate Council. He had shown a
super normal amount of patience in dealing with the usual wisdom, rhetoric, controversy
and hog wash. Professor lvey said that Professor Krislov should be honored with a round
of applause. He was given an enthusiastic ovation.

Chairman Schwert asked the Senate to urge the new members of their faculties to
attend the orientation for new faculty which would begin on Tuesday, September 9 at

3:00 p.m. in the President's Room in the Student Center. President Singletary, Paul
Sears and Jean Pival would tell the faculty the survival rules for new people in this
Institution. The Chairman said that it might be well to find this out on the way in
rather than five years from this Fall.

Chairman Schwert recognized Professor James Kemp for a motion from the Senate
Council. Professor Kemp, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended
approval of the proposal to establish a restricted enrollment policy for the College
of Business and Economics. This proposal was circulated to members of the University
Senate under date of August 26, 1980.

The Chair recognized Dean Ecton to present an amendment to the proposal. He made
the change for clarification purposes. The proposal on page 8, paragraph 1 reads:

"Normally students would apply for upper division admission during the
second semester of their sophomore year (the semester in which they

will have completed the English and pre—major component). The applica—
tion for admission to the College of Business and Economics must be
received by the University Office of Admissions no later than April 1 for
the summer session, June 1 for the fall semester, and October 15 for the
spring semester."

Suggested change to read:

"Normally Business and Economics students would apply for upper divi—
sion admission during the second semester of their sophomore year (the



semester in which they will have completed the English and pre-major
component). Students from other universities wishing to transfer to

the University of Kentucky should submit their application for admission
to the Admissions Office at least 15 days in advance of the dates speci—
fied in the University of Kentucky Bulletin in order to permit screening
at the College level. Students enrolled at the University of Kentucky
wishing to transfer to the College of Business and Economics should sub—
mit to the College their application for admission no later than March 15
for the summer and fall semesters and no later than October 15 for the
spring semester.”

There was no objection to considering the amended version of the proposal. The
floor was opened for questions and discussion.

Dean Sands said that he was sympathetic with Dean Ecton but perhaps the College of
Business and Economics had transferred their problems to other units, and he wondered
if the Senate Council had considered the impact of the recommendation on other units.
Dean Ockerman responded that first of all the proposal was significantly better than
the one presented earlier. Secondly, he felt with some additional computer resources
the Registrar's Office could manage the proposal. Thirdly, it would reduce the enroll—
ment. He said Business and Economics had a serious problem. He hoped from Dean Sands'
comment the Senate Council would look seriously at the overall impact before establish—
ing more selective admissions in other units. Dean Ockerman recommended approval of
the proposal.

A Senator said that this was a State University with an open admissions policy.
He agreed with Dean Sands in that Arts and Sciences is catching the brunt of the situa—
tion because they had no grounds for selective admissions. Dean Ockerman responded

that the only guidelines the University had were essentially very minimal. The guide—
lines relate primarily to the freshman level. The admissions policies of this
Institution are determined by the Senate with approval of the Board of Trustees. It
does impact the College of Arts and Sciences, and he hoped that the Senate would take
a serious look at where the University intends to go in the years ahead. Professor
Bostrom said that the problem was not unique to the College of Business and Economics,
and he felt the situation should be looked at from the standpoint of the whole Insti—
tution and not just one academic unit.

Dean Stewart asked Dean Ecton about any non—major who might want to take an elective
course in the upper division level who had the required prerequisite of the lower
division. She wanted to know if there was room for a non—major to take the course.

Dean Ecton responded there was a priority system worked out with the Registrar's Office.
The first priority was for Business and Economics students. The second was for other
students who needed Business and Economics courses for their programs. The third
category would be for all others. There was no further discussion, and the Chairman
called for the question. The proposal to establish a restricted enrollment policy for
the College of Business and Economics passed and reads as follows:


A proposal to establish a restricted enrollment policy for the College
of Business and Economics was presented at the May 1980 Senate meeting.
Several questions were raised, and the proposal was sent back to the
Council for revision.



The Council has met several times with the B & E representatives, and
with the Registrar. The revision below has been developed, and has
been approved by the Senate Council.


The College of Business and Economics proposes that the following
admission requirements be impo