xt7m0c4snc27 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7m0c4snc27/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1991-09-16  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 16, 1991 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, September 16, 1991 1991 1991-09-16 2020 true xt7m0c4snc27 section xt7m0c4snc27 LHMVERSHY OF KENTUCKY



30 August 1991

TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
September 16, 1991, at 3:00 P.M. in room 115 of the Nursing Building
(CON/HSLC). Note: The Nursing Building is across Rose Street from

the University Hospital and is connnected with the Medical Plaza.
Room 115 is at the north end of the building.

Minutes: April 8, 1991

Chair's announcements and remarks.

Remarks: President Charles T. Wethington, Jr.

Report: Dr. Gretchen LaGodna, Academic Ombud, 1990—91

Action Items:

a. Proposed addition to the University Senate Rules, Section I
— 2.2.4, Ex Officio Membership to add the Special Assistant
to the President for Academic Affairs as a Non-Voting
member of the University Senate. (Circulated under date of
4 September 1991.)



Proposed changes in the University Calendar, including
adoption of new policy guidelines in Section II, University
Senate Rules. (Circulated under date of 3 September 1991.5

Randall Dahl
Secretary, University Senate


Note: If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact Ms.
Martha Sutton in the Registrar's Office in advance, 7—7155.




The University Senate met in regu1ar session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
September 16, 1991, in Room 115 of the Nursing Hea1th Sciences Bui1ding.

Marcus T. McE11istrem, Chair of the Senate Counci1, presided.

Members absent were: Harry V. Barnard, Robert L. B1evins*, G1enn C.
B1omquist*, Peter P. Bosomworth, Doug1as A. Boyd, Joseph T. Burch, D. A11an
Butterfie1d*, Rutheford B Campbe11, Jr., C1yde R. Carpenter, Edward A. Carter,
Dona1d B. C1app, Patricia Co11ins*, C1ifford J. Cremers*, Lenore Crihfie1d,
Pau1 M. Eakin, Bruce S. Eastwood*, Richards Edwards, Raymond E. Forgue, Ni1bur
N. Frye*, Richard N. Furst, Lester Go1dstein, John J. Harris III, Zafar S.
Hasan*, Brian Hoffman, Micki King Hogue, Craig L. Infanger*, Richard A.
Jensen*, Kenneth K. Kubota, Thomas w. Lester, Linda Levstik*, Thomas T.
Li11ich*, C. Oran Litt1e, Linda J. (Lee) Magid, Robert C. Nob1e, C1ayton P.
Omvig*, Deborah E. Powe11, Danie1 R. Reedy, Thomas C. Robinson, Jim Shambhu,
Michae1 C. Shannon*, Andrew Shveda, Robert H. Spedding*, David H. Stockham,
Dennis M. TeKrony, John S. Thompson*, John Thrai1ki11*, Ann R. Tickamyer*,
Thomas Tucker, Enid S. Na1dhart*, Thomas J. Na1dhart, Michae1 A. Webb, Eugene
R. Ni11iams, and Emery A. Ni1son*.

The Chair we1comed the senators, the President, visitors, and students to
the first fu11 meeting of the University Senate for the 1991—1992 ca1endar
year. He predicted an exciting year.

The Chair recognized the Chair-e1ect of the Senate, Professor John Piecoro
from Pharmacy, to present a reso1ution.

1990-1991 SENATE CHAIR
September 16, 1991

Traditiona11y, at the first meeting of the University Senate
during the Fa11 semester of each academic year, we recognize our
retiring Senate Counci1 Chair. This reso1ution is offered to thank
and commend Professor Caro1yn Bratt for her dedicated, energetic and
untiring 1eadership as presiding officer of the University Senate and
as chair of the Senate Counci1.

In addition to the above 1eadership positions, Caro1yn served as
one of the two facu1ty members of the Board of Trustees of the
University as we11 as serving as a member of the Presidentia1 Search
Committee. She was engrossed in these top 1eve1 University affairs
and yet continued her teaching duties in the Co11ege of Law where she
ho1ds the w. L. Mathews Professor of Law Chair.

Professor Bratt's tenure began in the midst of the turmoi1 of
the Presidentia1 search. She maintained strong 1ines of communica—
tion with the Administration, facu1ty and students. She conveyed the
wi11 of the Senate in a most direct and dip1omatic way at a11 times
and earned the trust and respect of everyone invo1ved.

*Absence exp1ained.


 After the appointment of President Charles T. Wethington, Jr.,
Professor Bratt scheduled regular meetings with him. She also
scheduled meetings of the full Senate Council with the President.
Other meetings were held with the Council, the Chancellors of the
Lexington Campus and Medical Center respectively, as well as the
Deans and Associate Deans of the Colleges. Carolyn succeeded in
opening lines of communication among these groups and individuals.

Two important ad hoc committees of the Senate which had been
formed two years before released their reports in the fall of l990.
One was the Committee on the Status of Minorities Employed at U.K.
and the other was on the Status of Women Employed at U.K. These
Committees were charged with I“identifying the impediments to the full
and equal participation of minorities and women in the University
Community” and the respective reports pointed out the glaring issues
and problems which exist. The University has seriously considered
the findings of the reports and many changes have been implemented
and other changes will most certainly follow.

Carolyn was the Chair of the Committee on the Status of Women.
She and other members of the Committee made numerous presentations to
faculty units across the campus and other concerned groups. The
Committee could not have had a better Chair to marshall the study and
orchestrate the release of the information in the report. This
undoubtedly will be one of the most significant accomplishments of
Professor Bratt. She and her committee are owed a deep gratitude for
their efforts.

Professor Bratt skillfully employed the various Senate
committees, the Senate Council and faculty to handle the myriad of
typical Academic issues brought to the Senate. Key resolutions were
passed which will strengthen many University programs and Colleges.
The Senate under Professor Bratt's leadership was quite busy and
active and can certainly be proud of the many accomplishments.

Carolyn, like the previous Chairpersons of the University
Senate, accepted and solved many individual problems brought to her
attention, although these were not part of any Senate agenda.

In departing the office, Professor Bratt emphasized her concern
for the enhancement of the faculty's role in governing the University.

Professor Bratt, please accept the sincere thanks of the Senate
Council and the University Senate for your leadership, your
dedication and your service to the University and to all of its

Professor Piecoro requested that the resolution be presented to
Professor Bratt as a symbol of the Senate's appreciation and that a copy
be spread upon the Minutes of the University Senate.

Professor Bratt was given a round of applause.

The Chair thanked Professor Piecoro for the resolution.


 In recognizing the President, the Chair stated that President Charles
Methington has completed his first full year as President of the
University and that it has been an exciting year. The Chair added that
this is a very exciting climate for education at all levels in all of
Kentucky. During this year administrative leadership and academic
leadership has been developed, refined, and solidified and many of the
leaders who are functioning in these positions have said to Professor
McEllistrem that they particularly enjoy working with President
Methington because when he sees a direction that ought to be taken he is
anxious to see that moves are made so that direction is taken. The
President has shown a very clear concern, not only for all University
faculty but also, for the entire staff of the University. It was a
special privilege to the Chair to welcome the President and ask him to
offer his remarks to the senate to open the year.

President Charles Methington was given a round of applause.

The President's "Status of the University Address“ is attached to the
minutes. The President prefaced this address by thanking Professor
McEllistrem and added his words of appreciation to Professor Carolyn
Bratt for what she has done during the time she has been in the lead role
in the University Senate and Senate Council. He thanked her for the
manner in which she worked with him and with the administration during
this past year, and he added that he looks forward to carrying on that
same kind of good relationship with Professor McEllistrem and the rest of
the senate who are leaders in the University system faculty.

After his remarks the President was again given a round of applause.

The Chair thanked the President for his address. He stated that on behalf
of Professor Brattls leadership she had made a point near the end of her term
about the important role that faculty governance plays in achieving the kind
of goals for the University that the President talked about and the Chair
feels that faculty governance begins in the senate. He hoped that everyone
would encourage their colleagues to take a role in the University Senate
seriously this year and in the years to come. He feels that through the
senate and partitipation with each other is the only chance of establishing
the community that will make the University the kind the President mentioned.

The Chair pointed out an editorial change in the April 8, l99l, Minutes.
The change had to do with the approval of the Center for Membrane Sciences.
On page 20, the second line was changed to read: "The Director will report to
the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies.” On motion by Scott
Crosbie, seconded by Professor Weil and passed, the Minutes of April 8, l99l,
were approved as editorially changed and as circulated.

The Chair recognized Professor John J. Piecoro, Jr., Chair-elect of the
Senate Council, for the first action item on the agenda. Professor Piecoro,
on behalf of the Senate Council, moved approval of the proposed addition to
the University Senate Rules, Section I - 2.2.4, Ex Officio Membership to add
the Spec1al ASSistant to the President for Academic Affairs as a Non-Voting
member of the University Senate. The proposal was circulated to members of
the senate under date of 4 September l99l. Professor Piecoro stated that



 because the motion was a recommendation from the Senate Counci1 it did not
need a second.

The f100r was opened for discussion. The Chair stated that the Specia1
Assistant is Professor Juanita F1eming. Professor Jesse NeiI asked if Pau1
Sears had been a non-voting member of the senate. The Chair stated that Pau1
Sears he1d a position simiTar to Professor F1eming's, but it is not the same
position. He added that Professor Sears was not a member of the senate.
Professor Louise Zegeer (Nursing) stated that she feeIs it is important that
Professor F1eming be inc1uded in the non-voting ex officio membership because
of her critica1 position with regu1ations. She supports the motion.

There was no further discussion. The motion unanimoust passed and reads
as fo11ows:

Proposa1: [proposed addition is in bo1d print and under1ined]

2.2.4 Ex Officio Membership



[he ex officio voting members sha11 number 13 or 14. In
academic years beginning with an even number (e.g.,
1984-1985, 1986-1987), this group sha11 be composed of the
foIIowing: Chance11or for the Medica] Center, Vice President
for Research and Graduate Studies, Director of Libraries,
Vice Chance11or for Academic Affairs for the Lexington
Campus, Vice Chance11or for Academic Affairs for the
Community C011ege System, and Deans of the CoIIeges of A11ied
Hea1th Professions, Architecture, Communications, Dentistry,
Education, Engineering, Law, and Socia1 Work. In academic
years beginning with an odd number, the ex officio voting
members sha11 be the foIIowing: ChanceITEr for the Lexington
Campus, ChanceIIor for the Community Co11ege System, Vice
Chance11or for Academic Affairs for the Medica1 Center, the
Dean of the Graduate Schoo1, the President of the Student
Government Association, and the Deans of the C011eges of
AgricuIture, Arts and Sciences, Business and Economics, Fine
Arts, Human Environmenta1 Sciences, Library and Information
Science, Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy. (US:10/12/81 and
Bosz4/6/82; US: 11/10/86; US: 4/13/87 and Bosz9/15/87)


The ex officio non-voting membership sha11 inc1ude the
President, the Specia1 Assistant to the President for
Academic Affairs, a11 Vice preSidents, UniverSity System
Registrar, Associate Vice Chance11or for Academic Affairs,
Dean of Students, Professor of Mi1itary Science, Professor of
Aerospace Studies, the Director of the University Studies
Program, and, if they are not a1ready e1ected members of the
Senate, the University System facu1ty members of the Board of
Trustees, the Academic Ombudsman, the Director of the Honors
Program, and the chairmen of the University Senate
Committees, inc1uding University Senate Advisory Committees.



 All officials mentioned in the preceding paragraph who are
not voting ex officio members in any year shall be considered
non—voting a: 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. (US:lO/12/8l and BofT 4/6/82) (US: 12/10/84
and Bosz4/1/86) (US: 10/14/85 and BofT: 4/1/86) (US:
11/10/86 and Bosz 1/20/87)

Rationale: The person in this position serves as academic
liaison between the administration and all educational units
on campus as well as between the campus and the Higher
Education offices in Frankfort. To maintain open
communication in matters of academic concern, the Senate
Council recommends the Special Assistant be designated as an
ex officio, non-voting member of the University Senate. (If
approved, the proposal will be forwarded to the President for
inclusion in the Governing Regulations.)


NOTE: The change will be forwarded to the Rules Committee
for codification.

The Chair recognized Professor Piecoro for the second action item.
Professor Piecoro, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved approval of the
proposed changes in the University Calendar, including adoption of new policy
guidelines in Section II, University Senate Rules. He stated one recommenda-
tion was that a two-day Fall Break on the lhursday and Friday immediately
preceding mid—term be instituted, and secondly, the alignment of the Fall and
Spring Semester mid-term dates so that they coincide. The proposed changes
were circulated to members of the senate under date of 3 September 1991.
Professor Piecoro stated that because the proposals were recommended by the
Senate Council there was no need for a second.

The Chair asked for any questions or discussion on the item. Professor
Louis Swift (Dean of Undergraduate Studies) is in favor of the motion if it is
designed to help the students do better in their academic achievement. He
stated that as he reads the resolution he is not sure if it is appropriate or
possible for a faculty member to use this time to call special sessions of the
class to help students or is it appropriate for other activities that normally
go on in a student's day or in a faculty member's academic day? He wanted to
know if it would be a mini—vacation. He went on to say if this is something
to help students catch—up academic work, review, talk to professors, work on a
paper, this would be eminently commendable. He does not see that happening.
He wanted to know more about what is expected of faculty and students during
this time and wants to know where the University is coming from in terms of
enhancing student academic performance in the whole academic program at the

The Chair stated that Professor Lynne Hall's ad hoc Committee on the
Calendar studied the issue and made the second recommendation that Professor
Piecoro offered. The Chair recognized Professor Lynne Hall (Nursing) for the


 rationale. Professor Hall stated that the committee's intent was not to limit
what the days would be used for, but they would be for multiple purposes,
whether that might be catching up on work or doing other kinds of activities.
Professor Swift wanted to know if it would be appropriate for a professor to
give students extra help such as to hold special sessions? Professor Ray
Betts (Faculty Board Member) suggested using the time constructively toward a
University seminar and use the time to create a greater sense of intellectual
community to add to the academic program. He feels there are many ways the
time could be used vitally and constructively to make the institution a better
one as an academic community.

Professor Thomas Blues (English) stated that the question is whether a
faculty member could hold students to special seminars, conferences, and field
trips. He went on to say that it is nice to say the days might be used for
that, but there is no language in the recommendation which suggests there
could be such activities. Professor Blues moved that the proposal be sent
back to committee for two reasons: one, to consult with the constituencies
that have direct concern such as the Undergraduate Council, University Studies
Committee, the various College Councils, Student Government Council and
second, to consider whether the proposal is an academic enterprise or whether
it is simply a vacation. His concern is that the major rationale of the
proposal is not a major rationale at all.

Professor Jesse Weil (Physics) seconded the motion. He pointed out what
he feels are some definite problems with the proposal of taking two teaching
days and turning them into vacation days. He went on to say that one of the
things he sees as a problem is that it will further crowd what is already a
tight lecture schedule. The second problem he sees is that the proposal would
move the University to the low end of the distribution of the number of
teaching days among the benchmark universities. The third problem he sees and
is quite conscious of in one of his faculty roles is that students who meet on
Thurdays have a difficulty in fulfilling all the material of the course
because of Thanksgiving vacation. He went on to say there would be a
disparity between the students who have labs on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.

Student Senator Scott Crosbie, President of Student Government, wanted to
know how many faculty members Professor Lynn Hall had cbnsulted. Professor
Hall stated the committee did not consult with the Graduate or Undergraduate

Professor William Lyons (Political Science) stated that he feels part of
the problem is about what the professors want the committee to do. He did not
know if the professors wanted the committee to simply reverse its recommenda-
tion. As he recalled, when the recommendation first came to the committee, it
was simply viewed as setting a two—day break for the Fall. When it came to
the Senate Council, there were some, including Professor Betts, who spoke in
favor of having something happen on this campus during those days that
students could attend, not mandated to attend, which may provide some
opportunities for students to get exposed to some ideas or activities that
they would not ordinarily be exposed. He was not sure where the motion stood
on the floor. He added that if the motion was to return to committee with the
hopes that the committee will change its recommendation, then the appropriate
way to do that is to see whether or not the sentiment of the senate is to
defeat the original motion. "If the intent is to send it back to committee


 simply to explore this further with more groups, regardless of the outcome,
then that might be a worthwhile enterprise,” he said. He went on to say that
if the sentiment of the senate is that the University ought not to do this as
it stands, then he suggested the easiest way to do that is to defeat the
original motion.

The Parliamentarian ruled that the motion on the floor was to refer to
the original committee, which is the Calendar Committee. The Chair stated
that the issue was not what the committee should do or not do, but whether or
not the Senate wants more committee study. He added that a vote could be
taken on whether or not to send the proposal back to the Calendar Committee
and then if the senate decides to do that, instructions can be given to the
Calendar Committee to follow in its further study of the question.

Student Senator Scott Crosbie said that the students were ready to vote
on the proposal, and he was not sure how productive it would be to send the
proposal back to the committee.

Professor Bradley Canon (Political Science) asked if the proposal
occurred next year, how soon would the senate need to vote to change the
calendar? The Chair stated by February at the latest.

The motion to refer the proposal back to committee failed in a show of

The Chair suggested that the motion be divided in order to move more
efficiently. The first thing to consider is whether or not to move the Spring
mid—term date from its technical position on Friday to the succeeding Monday
so that both mid-term dates occur on Monday wnich lets students check things
over the weekend before deciding what he/she is going to do on Monday, which
will become the official mid-term date for both semesters. The motion carried
and reads as follows:

RECOMMENDATION: The committee recommends that mid-term for Spring
Semester Be on Monday instead of Friday.

NOTE: The change will be forwarded to the Rules Committee for

Implementation Date: Spring, l992.

The Chair recognized Student Senator Scott Crosbie for any comments. Mr.
Crosbie stated that he would yield his time to Student Senator Jay Ingle. Mr.
Ingle read the following resolution.

WHEREAS, the University of Kentucky is the benchmark institution in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and

WHEREAS, in a survey by the 1991 Ad Hoc Calendar Committee, 8 of 9
comparable benchmark institutions have some type of fall
break, and


 WHEREAS, the addition of a fall break and the University of
Kentucky's academic calendar would not lengthen the Fall
Semester, and

WHEREAS, the addition of a two-day fall break would make the number
of instructional days in the Fall and Spring Semesters
more equivalent, and

WHEREAS, a fall break on Thursday and Friday of the eighth week of
the Fall Semester would give faculty the opportunity to
review written work by students and prepare midterm
examinations, and

WHEREAS, many members of the University of Kentucky student body
support the idea of a two-day fall break.

GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION THAT: the student body at the University of
Kentucky supports a two-day fall break as recommended by the l99l Ad
Hoc Calendar Committee.

Mr. Ingle stated that the resolution was passed by acclamation by the
Student Senate.

Professor Carolyn Bratt (Law) complimented the students for all the work
they did and respect their opinion, but she had to disagree. Her reasons for
disagreeing are first of all, the break would cause three breaks in the
continuity of instruction during the Fall Semester. She feels that kind of
interruption in the continuity of instruction ought not to occur. Secondly,
the proposal cannot be implemented for all colleges at the University. The
College of Law reguires a certain number of hours of instruction and already
starts the semester one day early in the Fall in order to get in enough days.
She added that Law would not be able to allow their students to take advantage
of the break. She is not sure about the other professional schools and does
not know if this would apply to everyone. The third concern she has is that
the University is going to fall into the lowest category in terms of the
number of instruction days for the Fall Semester with the benchmark schools.
She is opposed to the proposal.

Student Senator Jim Arnett stated that the faculty must be pessimistic
about the quality of instruction to have an objection to putting the
University of Kentucky with the Universities of North Carolina and Virginia.
He asked if those colleges were so terrible that they have less instruction
days than UK or can they get the job done in fewer days? His argument was
that the majority at the University would be losing only one instruction day.
He went on to say that because he is a student perhaps he is not fully aware
of the ramifications of the proposal.

Student Senator Jay Ingle's feelings are that the two-day break would
truly be an academic break because if the students wanted a four-day weekend
to party they would ask for the time after the fall break. He went on to say
that the emphasis should be quality instructional days, not quantity.


 The Chair stated that in the discussion he did not hear starkly new
ideas. He added that the change is a very significant development and perhaps
some time is needed to reflect about it. He wanted to know if the senators
wanted to defer the final decision to the next senate meeting or go ahead and
vote on the proposal. In a show of hands the Chair ruled the senate did not
want to defer.

In further discussion a senator stated that the senate should be realistic
as they think about the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, the Monday after
Thanksgiving, the Friday before spring break, and the Monday after spring
break. He stated that the discussion was for four days, not two days.

Professor Raymond Betts stated that he was hearing more comments against
the proposal because it would disrupt what is already a tight schedule for
many people. He wanted to know if anyone saw the proposal as academically
constructive and somehow make it mandatory for the University. In other
words, take the two days and do something such as mini-seminars or academic
conferences. He heard no one speak of the real advantage of using the time in
an alternate manner. The Chair stated that the legal problems in structuring
the‘proposal in a mandatory way might be difficult to formulate and to

Professor Louis Swift wanted to know if it is possible for a professor to
hold special sessions with students without giving the impression he is
imposing upon them. He added there is nothing in the proposal that indicates
that an academic activity on that date could be required by anyone. The
Chair's interpretation of the proposal is that a professor cannot mandate a
student to perform in a certain way on those two days.

Student Senator Jay Ingle feels that it would be great if his professors
would have special sessions and he does not have a problem with that. Student
Senator Scott Crosbie feels that a break at mid-term would allow the new
freshmen the time to study. He added that to vote for the calendar days now
would allow time to plan for academic days or free days.

Professor Don Hochstrasser (Allied Health) feels that it might be of some
value for incoming freshmen but for the professional programs the proposal
would not work. He did not see how something could be mandated for the whole
University and wanted to know if it also would apply to graduate students.

The Chair responded that as the proposal is written it applies to all students.

Question was called, seconded by Professor Louise Zegeer and passed.

Motion to modify the calendar to include a two-day fall break on the
Thursday and Friday immediately preceding mid-term failed in a show of hands.

The Chair recognized Professor Gretchen LaGodna, the Academic Ombud for
the l990-9l academic year. [Professor LaGodna‘s l990-l99l Academic Ombud
Report is attached to the minutes.]

Professor LaGodna‘s remarks to the Senate follow:

Professor LaGodna urged the Senators to read the report
(attached to the minutes) for the details. She stated that it was a


 privilege to serve in that capacity and thanked the faculty for their
cooperation in helping to resolve conflicts and particularly for
their efforts to prevent those kinds of problems.

One recommendation she shared was that the Academic Ombud Office
was established in l970. It has never been subject to an external
review nor has its mission been revised to reflect changing needs of
the University community. The former and present Ombuds are
proposing and have recommended to the President that he appoint an
internal review committee to work with an external consultant to
study the office e— its purpose, its scope and effectiveness as well
as its relationships to other Ombud services on campus.

Professor LaGodna stated that the mediating role certainly
requires the assistance of many people, and particularly the staff of
the office. She thanked Frankie Garrison and the staff assistants
who served in consecutive order during the year -— Donna Bruszewski,
Kate Whitehead and Michelle Sohner. She added that a special note of
appreciation would have to go to Jean Pival who year after year as a
former Ombud, steps into the gap when she is most needed.

Professor LaGodna introduced Professor Russell Groves
(Architecture), Academic Ombud for l99l-92. She is sure he will have
a very productive academic year. Professor Groves was given a round
of applause.

Professor LaGodna thanked the senate and she was given a round of applause.
The Chair thanked Professor LaGodna for her report.

Professor McEllistrem then introduced Martha Sutton, Recording Secretary;
Randall Dahl, Secretary of the Senate; Gifford Blyton, Parliamentarian; and
Celinda Todd, Administrative Assistant in the Senate Council Office. He also
read the names of the members of the Senate Council who are: Carolyn Bratt,
Law and faculty member of the Board of Trustees; Lynne Hall, Nursing; William
Lyons, Political Science; Robert Guthrie, Chemistry; Deborah Powell,
Pathology; John Piecoro, Pharmacy, Chair-elect of the Council; Robert Noble,
Medicine; Glenn Blomquist, Economics; Connie Wilson, Social Work; Scott
Crosbie, President of Student Government; Ray Betts, faculty member of the
Board of Trustees; Jay Ingle and Jim Arnett, students.

In new business Professor Daniel Fulks (Accounting) stated that he had
served on the Calendar Committee two years ago and at that point the committee
was ready to recommend a change in the Summer Session. He wanted to know if
it would be possible for the senate to discuss those changes at a later date.
He wanted to know if this is an issue worth further discussion. The Chair
suggested taking the issue to the Senate Council first and look at it there
before bringing it to the entire University Senate.

There was no further new business and the Chair entertained a motion to
adjourn. Motion was made and the Chair adjourned th

Ra dall W. Dah
Secretary, University Senate


SEPTEMBER 16, 1991