xt7mw669698v https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7mw669698v/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1979-04-30 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, April 30, 1979 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 30, 1979 1979 1979-04-30 2020 true xt7mw669698v section xt7mw669698v UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506 UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING April 23, 1979 Members , University Senate The University Senate will meet in called session on Monday, pril 30,1979 at 3:00 P. M. in the Classroom Building, Room 118. PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN MEETING PLACE. AGENDA: 1) ‘ Minutes: April 9, 1979. Chairman’s Remarks Ombudsman Report: Professor Jane Emanuel. Action Items: a) Proposal to establish Academic Disciplinary Policies: College of Dentistry (circulated under date of March 26, 1979). b) For acceptance: University Senate Research Committee Report (circulated under date of March 27, 1979). For approval: Recommendations from University Senate Research Committee (circulated under date of April 17, 1979). c) Proposed Rule change: Section V1, 1.1 and l. 2 (circulated under date of April 3, 1979).. d) Preposed Rule change: Section 1, 4.1.12 (circulated under date of April 2, 1979). e) Withdrawal Policy: see attached. Elbert W. Ocke rman Secretary AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506 UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING April 23, 1979 Members , University Senate Joseph A. Bryant, .Ir., Chairman Withdrawal Policy Background: At its last meeting the Senate voted to divide the items in the Senate Council’s proposal for revision of the Senate Rules regarding withdrawal policy and to consider those proposals with reference to the two rules (V, 1. 8.1, and V, l. 8. 2). As you will recall the Senate voted to change Senate Rule V, 1. 8.1. That action stands, but neither this action nor any action the Senate may take on V, l. 8. 2 may be implemented before January 1, 1980. There remains for consideration the Senate Council's pro- posal regarding changes in Senate Rules V, 1. 8. 2. The present rule reads as follows: V l. 8. 2 A student may withdraw from a class during the last half of the term upon approval of a petition certifying urgent reasons including but not limited to: I. Illness or injury of the student; II. Serious personal or family problems; III. Financial inability to continue at the University, or; IV. Call to military service. Such petition should be recommended by the student's advisor and instructor and must be approved by the dean of the student‘s college. The instructor must assign an appropriate grade (see 1. 3 of this Section) or a grade of P or W may be assigned by the Univer— sity Appeals Board (see Section VI 5.1.1b). AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY Page 2 Senate Agenda Item: Withdrawal Policy April 23, 1979 The proposed change is as follows: During the last half of a course a student may not withdraw without receiving an earned grade, which his instructor will assign, except that for urgent reasons approved by the dean he .may withdraw with a ”W/P" or a ”W/F.” (Neither the W/P nor the W/F will be calculated in the student's GPA; these marks, like the "W," are for information only.) Note: If approved, the proposed changes will be forwarded to the Rules Committee for codification. The proposed change is, of course, open to amendment by the Senate, but the Council requests that anyone planning to propose an amendment be prepared to submit his proposal in writing. MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL 30, I979 The University Senate met in called session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, April 30, 1979, in Room 118 of the Classroom Building. Joseph A. Bryant, Chairman, presiding Members absent: Charles E. Barnhart, R. Paul Baumgartner*, Joanne Bell, Janis L. Bellack*, John J. Bernardo*, Mark Birkebak, Brack A. Bivins, A. Edward Blackhurst*, Jack C. Blanton, Thomas W. Brehm*, Kenneth Brooks, Jerry Brown, Judy Brown, Joseph T. Burch, Joe B. Buttram*, W. Merle Carter*, S. K. Chan*, Donald B. Clapp, Kenneth M. Coleman, Clinton Collins*, Frank Colton, Samuel F. Conti, Paul Davis, Patrick P. DeLuca*, George W. Denemark, David E. Denton, Ronald C. Dillehay, Marcus L. Dillon*, Joseph M. Dougherty, Anthony Eardley, W. W. Ecton*, William D. Ehmann*, Joseph Engelberg, Richard A. Etlin*, Wilbur W. Frye, Art Gallaher*, John H. Garvey, Jon P. Gockerman*, Abner Golden*, Merlin Hackbart*, Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hasan*, Virgil W. Hays*, Raymond R. Hornback, Charles W. Hultman*, David Hurst, Clyde L. Irwin, Malcolm E. Jewell, Wesley H. Jones, Edward J. Kifer*, James A. Knoblett*, Stephen Langston, Donald C. Leigh, Thomas P. Lewis, Arthur Lieber*, Steve Locke, William L. Matthews*, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Marion E. McKenna*, Phillip W. Miller*, Catherine Morsink*, Philip J. Noffsinger, David Peck*, Alan R. Perreiah, Deborah E. Powell*, Kim Ratcliff, Robert W. Rudd*, William Ruf, Ramona Rush, Pritam S. Sabharwal, Patrick J. Sammon*, Mike Schutte, Robert G. Schwemm, D. Milton Shuffett*, Otis A. Singletary*, John T. Smith, Tim Smith*, Wade C. Smith*, Lynn Spruill*, Terry Squires, Louis J. Swift*, Gene Tichenor, Leonard Tipton, Rodney Tulloch*, M. Stanley Wall, Marc J. Wallace*, Constance P. Wilson*, H. David Wilson*, Fred W. Zechman* The minutes of the meeting of April 9, 1979, were approved as circulated with the exception of amending a Student Senator's remarks on page four by adding the words "the position that.” The sentence now reads ”...wanted to go on record as being in favor of the position that if a student were going to drop..." The Chairman made the following remarks. He said there were several items for action. Proposal B, he noted, contained both a committee report for acceptance and a set of proposals to be discussed, approved, or disapproved, and forwarded to the Administration for appropriate action. The other three were all action items, he said. The Chairman called the Senators' attention to the fact that the withdrawal policy was put last with no attempt to delay it. He said that he had a copy of the minutes from the Student Government meeting in which they strongly urged reconsideration of the items passed regarding action on the withdrawal policy. The first items were the ones that needed action before the end of the year; the withdrawal policy could not be implemented in any case before January 1, 1980. The last item the Chairman pre- sented was a communication from Professor A. J. Hiatt, Chairman of the Agronomy Depart— ment, of a Memorial Resolution on the late Professor Charles Eugene Bortner. Chairman Bryant read the Resolution and directed that it be made a part of these minutes and that copies be provided to the members of the immediate family. Following Professor Bryant's presentation of the Resolution, the Senators were asked to stand for a moment of silence in tribute and respect to Professor Bortner. 7*Absence Explained MEMORIAL RESOLUTION Charles Eugene Bortner, 1908—l979 Charles Eugene Bortner, A Research Agronomist with USDA, Agricultural Research Service and Professor of Agronomy at the University of Kentucky, died March 23, 1979 at the age of 71. A native of McKeesport, Pennsylvania, Mr. Bortner came to Kentucky and received his B.S. Degree in Agriculture in 1930 from the University of Kentucky. He worked for the University for about a year and then entered the University's Graduate School where he received an M.S. Degree in Soils in 1933. From that time until 1948, he worked for the University of Kentucky conducting studies in soil fertility and mineral nutri— tion of tobacco. During World War II, he served approximately four years in the U.S. Army Chemical Corporation. From 1948 until retirement in 1976, he worked under a joint appointment for the Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture and the University of Kentucky; altogether, 43 years of service for improved production of burley tobacco. Results of his research contributed to the tripling of yields of burley tobacco. He was elected twice as Chairman of the Tobacco Chemists' Research Conference and served several years on the Editorial Board of Tobacco Science. In addition to his research accomplishments, he served as senior scientist in the Federal—State Tobacco Research Programs in Kentucky; and after USDA's reorganization in 1972, he served as Location Leader for the ARS group at the Univesity of Kentucky. Through his many roles as a distinguished professor and scientist, Charlie's influence has touched all phases of tobacco research at the University of Kentucky. He was a long—time member of the American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Sigma Xi and Alpha Zeta. Charles Bortner was a dedicated agricultural researcher, a true scholar, officer and gentleman for which we express our gratitude. He is greatly missed by his many friends and colleagues. We extend our deepest sympathy to Mrs. Bortner, their two children and three grandchildren. Chairman Bryant recognized Professor Jane Emanuel for the Academic Ombudsman's Annual Report of 1978-79. Professor Emanuel spoke to the Senate as follows: Chairman Bryant, members of the Senate, and guests, this past year as Academic Ombudsman has, in truth, been the most challenging, the most interesting, and the most rewarding of my professional life at the University of Kentucky. I shall always be grateful to President Singletary and to this body for this unique opportunity of service and personal growth. I am in your debt. At this point I would be remiss if I did -3— not publicly acknowledge the invaluable contributions of Frankie Garrison, my staff assistant. Her efficiency in the day—to—day operation of the Office of the Academic Ombudsman is noteworthy, but more importantly her understanding of and dedication to the objectives of the office are indispensible. To speak of this past year in terms of numbers and types of academic issues is to share with you only the shadow, the silhouette of the reality -— the flesh and bones, the heart and soul are missing. The students, the faculty, the admin— istrators represented by these numbers, by these categories, were real people who were confronted by real problem situations. However, the confidentiality of the office requires that I speak in terms of numbers and issues and not in terms of parti— cular individuals with specific problems. The following numerical view of the activities of the office from July 1978 to April 1979 does not include those casual drop—in visits or telephone calls that requested infor— mation such as academic deadlines, directions to buildings, telephone numbers, and names of particular individuals. We did, however, record some 107 brief cases. By this I mean that information was taken down; that advice, an interpreta— tion, or a referral was given; or that a phone call or per- sonal contact was made on my part. Of these brief cases, 101 originated from students and six came from faculty mem— bers. We acted in 134 cases concerning issues of an academic nature involving students on the one hand and faculty or administrative staff on the other. In our attempt to aid in the resolution of these academic problems we have interacted at some level with every college in the University save one, the College of Library Science. Before I give you a college—by—college breakdown, a word of caution. The number of cases in any one college is more directly related to the total size of that college than it is to anything else. And, no where in these calculations is the seriousness or importance of any one of these problems visible. The breakdown: Agriculture — 5, Allied Health Professions - 2, Architecture — 4, Arts and Sciences — 55, Business and Eco— nomics - 6, Honors Program — 2, Law — 1, Medicine - 1, Nursing ‘ 1, Pharmacy — l, and Social Professions — 1. In 131 of these cases we were able to reach a resolution which, if not completely satisfactory to all parties, was at least understandable and acceptable. We were unable to reach a satisfactory solution in three instances and these cases were forwarded without support to the Appeals Board. As in the past, the majority of the academic problems centered around grades: mistakes in grading, disagreement with evaluative judgement of faculty, not understanding grad— ing scales, no grade turned in to registrar, lack of stated grading procedures, deviation from stated grading procedures, mistakes in final grade computation, ”I” grades, and "W" ‘4— grades. Other problem areas were cheating, plagiarism, add/drop procedures, smoking, absence policies, pass—fail courses, changes in the final exam schedule, contract courses, destroyed exams, inaccurate or non—existent advisement, regis— tration, admission to professional programs, curriculum changes, repeat option, certification of clinical hours, common exams given outside of class time, academic load and work load, and the teaching methods of both regular faculty and teaching assistants. In an effort to correct or alleviate some of these academic problem areas, I submit the following recommendations for your consideration: 1. Circulate the following Senate Policy and Rules to the faculty at the beginning of each semester. a. Information About Course Content (Section VI, 1.1) b. Information About Course Standards (Section VI, 1.2) c. Final Examinations (Section V, 2.4.6) d. The No—Smoking Policy adopted December 8, 1975. Consider a new rule relative to the holding by faculty of final exams and term papers/projects for at least one semester after the completion of a course. Implement a comprehensive program of training and supervision to improve teaching by our teaching assistants. Strengthen and expand the faculty development programs which are aimed at the improvement of teaching by our regular faculty. Develop more effective ways to prevent and dis- courage cheating and plagiarism. Explore ways to better orient our foreign stu- dents to the academic procedures, requirements, and expectations of this university. Consider changing Section VI, 1.1 and 1.2 to include that the required information about course content and course standards be given in writing to students. Develop a policy to cover common examinations that are held outside of the regular class period. The time that I have spent this past year dealing with academic problems has not made me cynical or disheartened. Quite the contrary, it has reaffirmed my belief that we are basically a strong, healthy academic community. We have a well defined set of rules, rights, and responsibilites that for the most part work and work well. This is not to say that we cannot and should not do better; we can and we should. Not only the letter, but the spirit and intent of the rules, rights and responsibilities defined by this University should be apparent in and govern all of our academic interactions. Professor Emanuel was given an enthusiastic applause. Chairman Bryant thanked Professor Emanuel for her remarks and said that the recommendations would be put on the agenda of the Senate Council. The Chairman reCognized Professor Daniel Reedy for a motion from the Senate Council. Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposal to establish Academic Disciplinary Policies: College of Dentistry. This proposal had been circulated to members of the University Senate under the date of March 26, 1979. Professor Reedy brought to the Senators' attention that on page five following the state— ment "Objective of the Policy” the following statement should be added. ”A student will be removed from academic probation by the Dean when the terms of probation have been met." The Chairman asked Dean Packer to answer any questions. The floor was opened for ques— tions and discussion. The previous question was moved, seconded and passed. The motion passed. It reads as follows: Background: Last year the College of Dentistry formulated a set of academic disciplinary policies and forwarded them to the Senate Council for approval and inclusion in the Senate Rules. The Council sent the proposal to the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards, which suggested several modifications. The Senate Council itself has subsequently made modifications in the proposal. All these have been accepted by the College of Dentistry. The Council now sub— mits it to the Senate with a recommendation for approval. The Proposal: Academic Disciplinary Policy Number One: Basis for Academic Discipline Objective of the Policy: To define the basis for academic discipline in the Professional Dental Education Program Policy Statement: Disciplinary action for students in the Professional Dental Education Program will be initiated upon unsatisfactory academic performance. Responsible Agent: The Dean. Methods and Procedures: Requests to alter academic disci— plinary policy will be made in writing to the Academic Council. (Refer to the Rules of the Faculty, Section III, 6.1.) :‘c 7': 7': Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Two: Academic Probation Objective of the Policy: To define academic probation. Policy Statement: A student who fails a course will be placed on academic probation. If a student is performing unsatisfactorily in one or more courses, the Academic Perfor— mance Committee may recommend probation. The duration of academic probation will be at least one complete semester. Responsible Agent: The Dean. Methods and Procedures: The Assistant Dean for Student Affairs will notify the student who is subject to academic probation and will report this information to the Dean. The Academic Performance Committee will recommend the terms of probation. The terms of the academic probation will be stated in a letter from the Dean. 7‘:*:’< Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Three: Academic Suspension Objective of the Policy: To define academic suspension. Policy Statement: A student will be suspended from the College of Dentistry if the student: 1) fails to meet the terms of academic probation, 2) is placed on academic probation for a second time, 3) has been in residence in a dental curriculum for five academic years and has not been graduated, 4) has been admitted with advanced standing and has not been graduated within one year following the end of the time period agreed to upon admission, 5) fails two or more courses during an academic year. Responsible Agent: The Dean. Methods and Procedures: The Assistant Dean for Student Affairs will notify the student who is subject to academic suspension and will report this information to the Dean. The Dean may place a student on academic probation instead of suspension if the individual case justifies it. 7': 7': 7': Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Four: Procedures for Consideration of Academic Suspension Objective of the Policy: To define the review process in consideration of academic suspension. Policy Statement: A student who is subject to academic suspension may request a review. Responsible Agent: The Dean. Methods and Procedures: The procedures for the review of academic suspension will include the following: 1) A review will be held if requested by the student subject to suspension. This request must be in writing and received by the Dean within five (5) school days of notification of suspension. The student shall state the basis of the request for review. The Dean will appoint an Ad Hoc Committee of faculty, with a student representative, to review the case. A student for whom a review has been scheduled: a) will be allowed to inspect any records relevant to the suspension procedure. b) will be entitled to choose a member of the faculty and a classmate to be present at the review. c) will have the right to hear and question any witnesses. d) will be given the opportunity to present the basis for requesting a review. The minutes and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee will be forwarded to the Dean. The Dean will meet with the student to review the recommendations and solicit comments. The decision of the Dean is final for the College. 7'<>‘<7'< Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Five: Participation in Curricular Privileges or Extracurricular Activities while on Academic Probation Object of the Policy: To define curricular and extracurricular restrictions for students on academic probation. Policy Statement: A student who is on academic probation will be excluded from participation in curricular privileges or extracurricular activities of the College of Dentistry. Curricular and extracurricular exclusions consist of: 1) taking enrichment courses except as described in Curriculum Policy Number Eleven. _8_ beginning a totally self—instructional course before the official starting date unless this course is part of a special curriculum developed by the Academic Perfor— mance Committee. serving as an officer or committee member of any College of Dentistry organization or committee. participating in any College of Dentistry extracurricular activity or in the activity of any College of Dentistry organization if the participation involves the expendi— ture of an appreciable amount of time. Participation in these activities will be considered a viola- tion of the terms of probation. Responsible Agent: The Dean Methods and Procedures: The Dean will include these restric- tions in the terms of probation. - J. 7'“ 4\ Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Six: Removal from Academic Probation Objective of the Policy: To define the conditions for removing a student from academic probation. A student will be removed from academic probation by the Dean when the terms of probation have been met. Responsible Agent: The Dean Methods and Procedures: When a student has met the terms of probation, the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs will report the student's name to the Dean. *7'<* Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Seven: Reinstatement Following Academic Suspension Objective of the Policy: To define the process for reinstate- ment following academic suspension. Policy Statement: A student on academic suspension may apply for reinstatement under probation. The reinstatement may not become effective until at least one complete semester has passed from the time of suspension. Responsible Agent: The Dean. Methods and Procedures: A student may be considered for reinstatement upon submission of a written request to the Dean who shall make a decision. Upon reinstatement by the Dean, the student will be placed on academic probation, the terms of which will be recommended by the Academic Performance Committee. Grade Review Policy Objective of the Policy: To define the process for student grade review. Policy Statement: A student has the right to request and receive a grade review. Responsible Agent: The Dean. Methods and Procedures: A student before requesting a grade review, will attempt to resolve the issues with the Course Director and the Department Chairman. 1) Should this meeting fail to resolve the issue, the student may submit a written request (which should in— clude the basis for the grade review) to the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs for the formation of a Grade Review Committee. The Grade Review Committee will consist of five (5) voting members (four faculty and one student) appointed by the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs. The Assistant Dean for Student Affairs will appoint the Chairperson of the Committee. The student requesting the grade review is entitled to disqualify, without cause, a total of two (2) of the five (5) voting members. The replacements will be chosen to maintain the composition as described previously. The Assistant Dean for Student Affairs will designate the time and place for the meeting and assure that the issue is resolved within thirty (30) days of the formation of the Committee. The student, the advisory, the department chairperson, the course director, and any other persons having information relevant to the case in question will be requested to attend the meeting, at which time the situation will be fully discussed by all parties concerned. Following this open discussion, the Committee will make a recommendation to the department chairperson and the course director involved. The Committee will not have the prerogative of changing the grade. In situations in which a failing grade subjects the student to possible suspension, the grade review shall become the responsibility of the Ad Hoc Review Committee consider- ing suspension. The Chairman again recognized Professor Daniel Reedy for a motion from the Senate Council. Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, moved acceptance of the University Senate Research Committee Report. This report had been circulated to members of the University Senate under the date of March 27, 1979. The motion to accept the report passed. Professor Reedy recommended approval of the Recommendations from the University Senate Research Committee. These recommendations had been circulated to members of the University Senate under the date of April 17, 1979. The Chairman said that the recommendations in their original form constituted part of the report. The Senate Council at its last meeting agreed to approve them after making certain modifications. The Chairman asked Professor Eichhorn, Chairman of the Committee, to speak about the proposal as a whole. Professor Eichhorn spoke to the Senate as follows: There are seven items before the Senate, which are a result of the Committee's deliberations over the year. The Research Committee had a rather vague charge. They took advantage of the fact and looked at the state of research at the University. The University of Kentucky is forty—fifth in total Federal Obligations. We are better in this regard than any other institution in the state, but we are not as good as others in nearby states. We perceive a number of problems at the University in terms of research. We perceive a lack of University-wide fo- cus on research, lack of visibility for research, and faculty concern for the status of research. All these things make it hard to recruit the best staff and hard to retain the good ones we do have. There are a number of things we could do to improve the situation. We could proclaim research to have a co-equal mission with the pedagogy. We would like to see research priorities placed upfront. We have no quarrel with teaching, research and service as a tri- angle. But, we feel research has taken a step back. We think that scholarship should be reestablished as a significant criteria for tenure. We think that individuals given tenure should excel in research just as we expect them to excel in teaching. We think that a sincere desire for excellence in teaching and research should be a criteria for tenure. We think there should be some improvement in the publicity of scholarship. We suggest that another look be taken at the distribution of effort. We also suggest that the University consider es— tablishing a Research Title Series and improve the general focus on research. We suggest the formation of a cabinet level position for Research Administration. There are seven recom- mendations. I will respond to any question you may have. The Chairman said that in the interest of orderliness it might be well to take the recommendations one at a time, but asked for any general questions. A Senator asked if the recommendations could be considered individually as separate motions. He said there were some he supported and others he opposed. The Chairman said that was the plan recom— mended by the Council. Professor Krislov spoke to the Senate as follows: I think it might be useful to have a critical View of the entire proposal. That way both the positive and negative side would be presented. The most cogent comment I have heard about this from an unnamed person is that if we could find some way to take the money we are going to spend in implementing the -11- seven items and distribute it directly to the people who are doing research, the University would be much better off. That is the great fear I have with this proposal. First, we are committing ourselves to spending a huge amount of money with dubious results. We are proposing to hire people who are presumably better than we are at research and keep them without tenure. Personally, I find that very unfair. Such a proposal would guarantee that we would lose good people and keep the mediocre. Secondly, I find it very difficult to understand what a Vice President of Research will do. Some of the re- search is decided by Congress, State Legislators and administrators and some of them are brazen enough to tell us what the results should be. I don't see how the creation of a Vice President could help us procedurally or substantively. Third, there are very dubious expenditures such as a multi- disciplinary research bulletin, monograph series, and faculty handbook on research. The net result of all this is that I don't know what the result will be, but I do know we will exspend enormous amounts of money. Let me point out that by any test I doubt if anybody will say that research has not been the area that we have made our most impressive result. Professor Skelland said that he had a catalog of complaints about the report and Professor Krislov had given him a new list. He added that Professor Krislov was wrong in saying that a Vice President for Research was not needed, and he spoke in favor of having a Vice President for Research. He said that the University needed to increase the output of published research. He suggested getting students' masters and Ph.D. theses published. Professor Charles F. Knapp from Mechanical Engineering made the following remarks: I represent, today, faculty members and research associates of the Wenner-Gren Laboratory who strongly recommend positive action on the proposal outlined in the Senate Research Committee Report. We view the recommendations as a crucial step in reversing the declining morale among many faculty members who do research at this University. The environment which these faculty mem— bers find themselves in today is counterproductive to quality research and, as a consequence of their frustration, jeopardizes the quality of teaching as well. In an era of increasing competition for declining research dollars, increasing federal and state regulation, and increasing requirements for research as an important consideration for promotion, the University administration must recognize its res- ponsibility to create and administer an environment which stream— lines the research process. The creation of a cabinet level administrative unit for research will provide effective repre- sentation of University research needs with funding agencies and federal and state governments. Equally pressing, is the urgent need for an administrative unit whose primary charge is to coordinate research throughout the campus, and produce much needed changes in the daily conducts of research. Individual faculty members are spending entirely too much time trying to -12- identify the pathways for administrative approval for particular research situations with the all too often heard phrase ”It can't be done." We are wasting the research talents of our faculty. We must streamline our research support activities, such as coordinating interdisciplinary efforts, purchasing for research purposes and personnel policies affecting research staff. The recommendations of the University Senate Research Committee are realistic and necessary for the support of a top quality research program. It is essential that these recommenda— tions be enacted