xt7q5717q96q https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7q5717q96q/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1974-10-14  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 14, 1974 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 14, 1974 1974 1974-10-14 2020 true xt7q5717q96q section xt7q5717q96q ~_.....,‘,..,n..,‘,,..fl.,..,.‘.., .......«........-...‘,. .. _ ‘ , ,...,...._,.. WW." ,......


The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, October 14,
1974. Chairman Stanford Smith presided. Members absent: Lawrence A. Allen,
C. Dwight Auvenshine*, Harry H. Bailey, John G. Banwell*, Harry Barnard*, Charles
E. Barnhart, Jackie Barry*, Robert P. Belin*, Robert S. Benton*, Harold Binkley*,
Peter P. Bosomworth, Garnett L. Bradford*, H. Stuart Burness*, Carl Cabe, Michael
Clawson*, Bruce Combest, Ronda S. Connaway*, Clifford J. Cremers*, M. Ward Crowe*,
Vincent Davis*, Patrick F. DeLuca*, George W. Denemark*, Bette J. Dollase*, Mary
Duffy*, Anthony Eardley*, W. W. Ecton*, Roger Eichhorn*, Thomas Field, Lawrence
E. Forgy*, James E. Funk*, James W. Gladden*, Ward 0. Griffen*, Merlin Hackbart*,
Jack B. Hall, Joseph Hamburg, Holman Hamilton*, Richard Hayes, Virgil W. Hays,
Rita Hawkins, Raymond R. Hornback, Eugene Huff*, Charles Hughes*, Robert M. Ireland*,
Roy K. Jarecky*, Raymon D. Johnson, William Kennedy, Don Kirkendall*, James
Knoblett*, Virginia La Charite*, David L. Larimore*, Gene P. Lewis, Donald Madden,
Paul Mandelstam*, James R. Marsden*, Levis D. McCullers*, Randolph McGee*, Marion
E. McKenna*, E. Gregory McNulty*, William C. Miles*, William G. Moody, Alvin L.
Morris*, Brian Motley, Robert C. Noble*, Thomas M. Olshewsky*, Anne E. Patterson*,
David Peck, Arthur Peter, Barbara Reed*, Wimberly C. Royster*, Rudloph Schrils*,
Paul G. Sears*, Robert A. Sedler*, Brad Smith, John B. Stephenson, E. Anne Stiene,
William J. Stober*, William C. Templeton, Sherrell Testerman, Leonard P. Tipton*,
John N. Walker, M. Stanley Wall, Daniel L. Weiss, Rebecca Westerfield, Bruce H.
Westley*, Paul A. Willis, Constance P. Wilson*, Miroslava B. Winer, William W.

The minutes of the meeting of September 9, 1974 were approved as circulated.
Chairman Smith gave the following report to the Senate:

There are a number of items to report to you from the Senate Council
Office. Following up on an activity that was taken at the last Senate
meeting, the Senate Council has established, in conjunction with the Commum-
ity College Senate Council, a liaison task force. The members of that group
from the University Senate Council will be the officers of the Senate Council,
namely, the Chairman, the Chairman—elect, and the Secretary. The members
from the Community College Senate Council will be their co—chairman, the
chairman of their Program Committee and the Chairman of their Rules Committee.
(They have a slightly different structure.) We anticipate those six individ—
uals getting together in the near future in an attempt to address some of
our mutual problems.

We are pleased to reportthatProfessor Cliff Cremers of the College of
Engineering has agreed to serve as Chairman of the Senate standing Committee
on Academic Facilities. Those of you who have concerns in that area might
wish to direct them to Cliff.

In the Senate Council Office we have been in the process of mailing the
updated versions of the Rules 2: the University Senate. We have not completed
that mailing for a variety of reasons. Some of you will have received the
updated Rules already. The rest of you will receive them in the near future.

Perhaps as a comment or a follow-up to that, I received a number of
requests, between the last Senate meeting and this one, that I clarify for
this body what happened to one of the recommendations in the Krislov Report.
Specifically, a number of Senators felt that it was not clear, from what
they had read in the Kernel or heard by skuttlebutt or from what I had
reported here in September, just what had been the response and the action

*Absence explained








‘1‘. " '." "f”:“"’“'“‘-“1-“’v\-'~\~1r~.‘1 ~-Wm1m«?rMWW—mWW


Minutes of the University Senate, October 14, 1974 — cont

concerning the recommendation contained in the Krislov Report and approved
by this body, that individuals be given written reasons when their contracts
were terminated, or expired. Several members had the feeling, from what

I had reported to you in September, that somehow this recommendation .9
was dismissed out—of-hand by the President. I think it is appropriate

to correct that impression. In fact, the recommendation was not dismissed
out—of—hand by the President. It received considerable deep thought

on his part and was the subject of a number of discussions. He finally
decided, as he reported to the Senate Council members and to the Board

of Trustees, after much soul—searching on it and much examination of the
dialogue as reported in our minutes, that at this time, and under the present
system at the University, he did not choose to accept that recommendation.

I think he made it clear that he would be willing, after some appropriate
time, to reconsider that recommendation, particularly if there were new
aspects to be reviewed. I should also make it clear that in reporting

this decision to the Board of Trustees, the President went out of his

way to ask both faculty members of the Board of Trustees, who are, of course,
members of this body and of the Senate Council, to reflect to the Board
members the attitudes and opinions of the faculty and what their feelings
were, in general, on that particular recommendation. Both of the faculty ”b
Board of Trustees members did so —— quite eloquently, I might add. So

while we proposed a number of recommendations and one of them was not
accepted at this time, it is certainly not appropriate to suggest that

it was rejected out—of—hand, or arbitrarily, and that it might not receive
an alternate kind of consideration at some future date.

We have another, perhaps unfortunate, item to report to you. As some
of you know we have had some problems with the nominating ballot for the
election of a faculty member to the Board of Trustees. This ballot was
mailed to you a little less than two weeks ago. It contained a list with
1,650 names on it of eligible faculty members here and in the Community
College System. You were asked to complete your ballots and return them
by Wednesday, October 16th. The process of finding all the eligible people,
excluding the ineligible people, for that list is a rather cumbersome
and awesone one. We discovered, after the ballot had been sent out, that
there had been some misunderstandings in the interpretation of the Rules.

It was really a weird situation. Everybody who was associated with the a.
preparation of that list did exactly what they were supposed to in exactly

the right way using exactly the right and proper interpretation of the Rules.
The problem.is that two different groups were using two different rules,

and we ended up with a conflict. To be perfectly straightforward, the

conflict focused on whether department chairmen are or are not faculty

members and are or are not eligible for election to the Board of Trustees,

and incidentally, eligible to serve on this body, on the Senate Council,

and all other sorts of Councils. We have had a policy clearly enunciated

in the minutes of the Board of Trustees, the Governing Regulations, and
elsewhere, that the department chairmanship is a duty assumed by a senior
faculty member who is considered a faculty member. We have had some other

rules and regulations and procedures developed to attempt to determine whether
individuals are full—time and hence, eligible, or part-time, and hence,
ineligible for election to various offices. If one is doing less than half-
time teaching, then one is ineligible by applying the full—time-part—time !.
formula. And yet if the other half of that duty is a department chairmanship,
one is eligible by virtue of it being a faculty member's job. The net result
is that 10 names were left off the ballot. After considerable soul—searchingd





lip, A

.ng a

_ nun-nnmynr'ecrwm‘”'"”13’3“"""'"'”'~"~-"" ' ' WWW" ‘ ' 1"

Minutes of the University Senate, October 14, 1974 - cont 3909

discussion at all levels, we went through the usual necessary legal pro—
cedures to clarify the situation. We then established a new list of

eligible candidates, directed the impoundment and destruction of all ballots
on the first round which had been received to date, and are mailing you

a new ballot. Our information is that we will receive these from the

Central Duplicating Office at the end of this week and you should receive
them in the mail perhaps Monday or Tuesday. We will put them on a different
color paper to avoid any possibility of confusing one ballot with the

other. We beg your indulgence. It was an innocent event. Nobody misstepped
or did anything wrong. It was just simply one of those things that happens.

There is perhaps one major item that you would appreciate knowing ——
there has been some publicity already. The President received a report
prepared by Victor Gaines, on special assignment to the President's Office,
dealing with the question of minorities, particularly minority students.

It is a fairly extensive document and included a number of recommendations.
Some of those recommendations were germane to the business of this body,
namely academic and curricular matters. The Senate Council has received

a copy of that report; and we have received a request from the President
that we examine the recommendations and take appropriate action. We will
be meeting with Victor Gaines next week and will be bringing to you in the
future, as appropriate, various actions designed to take further steps

and make further efforts to improve the University's response to minority

Finally, there is one other item which, as Chairman, I would like to
take a few minutes to communicate to you along with some personal comments
and suggestions. It deals with a vary simple subject —— money. We all
know what the problem is. All we have to do is go to the store with our
wives or go home and look at the bills. A part of it is our salaries.

Those of us who have any opportunity know that the problem extends to the
University. We simply have to look at our departmental budgets —— our 101
accounts, the cost of the equipment we buy, and so on. I won't bore you
with a large number of statistics but I might point out one that the
President mentioned at a recent meeting. A year ago we were paying $15

a ton for coal. Now we are paying $50 a ton. Our postage bill has gone up
40 per cent. As an example of the kinds of things we are talking about, the
Central Duplicating Services produced 22 million plus impressions last

year. An impression is a page of printing and their supplies bill for

that alone was $128,000. The cost of mimeograph paper has gone up over

40 per cent and it is anticipated it will go higher. So we have a problem ~—
personally, and professionally. And something needs to be done about it.
Many people have raised the question: Why doesn't the President ask for
more money? Why doesn't he do this and do that and do something else?

The Senate Council, and I, as the Chairman, have discussed this question
with the President at some length and over several years. The fact of

the matter is that the President does ask for more but somehow that message
doesn't seem to get to people. The fact that he asks doesn't mean we get

it from the people in Frankfort. There are a lot of priorities in this
state and we are only gas of them. The other question is: Why don't we

do something inside the institution to make more money? Why don't we do
this, that, or the other thing? I would like to report to you some follow—up
and some comments that the President made at a recent AAUP meeting, in

which he said, as I remember, that he would move heaven and earth and do
everything in his power to find out how to take care of the money problem in
this institution to attempt to provide faculty salaries because, in his
opinion, the faculty is perhaps the single—key most important component of




 .1. wraimamduzxx‘lfll‘fiflflTL‘I


Minutes of the University Senate, October 14, 1974 — cont

this institution. He is attempting to make those efforts. He has

had extensive meetings with all of the administrative personnel in

this institution and that covers the gamut from soup to nuts. It

‘ covers how often we sweep the floors and wash the windows, collect

”“1 the trash and paint the curbs; which lights we turn off and on, and h
a vast multitude of activities that are being examined. The President
indicated to me a week ago that it is simply too early to make any

promises to you; that whatever savings we may be able to effect may well

be wiped out within a month or two, depending on the temperature outside,
amongst other things, and what happens elsewhere in the economy. But

he is trying and trying very hard. It is my opinion and that of the Council%
that you ought to know that. It is not a case of everybody sitting around
and not doing anything.

‘1 That leads to an additional item under the heading of money and that
jl «- is: What are we_doing? It is probably not our business to deal with
‘ the experts on accounting matters —— how often we collect the trash, and
so on -— however, we may have some suggestions in that area. But it
certainly is our business to examine the academic side of what we do,
both individually and collectively. We spend perhaps as much as a 5
half million dollars a year on paper; $128,000 alone in Central Dup— ‘
licating; more in the departments; more in forms; and so on. The
Council Office figures that we can save a couple of hundred dollars and
several hundred thousand sheets of paper simply by eliminating all of
those duplicate mailings. With luck you will not get three copies of
the Senate minutes this month. While we can't print everything on both
sides of the paper, we can print an awful lot of things on both sides.
The best estimates of the people in Central Duplicating are that we can
save 30 per cent of our paper budget if we just print those items for
which it is reasonable and appropriate, on both sides of the sheets of
papers. When we run a seminar notice that is three lines long, we can
H‘ , cut the page in half or we can attempt to use the blue sheet or Communi—K,
“f l or other devices, to avoid duplication. I, frankly, and the Council, don't
know what other things we, as academics, could do to save money. We
are certainly going to examine a lot of the procedural stuff that goes
through the Senate and the Council. But we don't know what could be
‘ done in the way of changes in the curricula, scheduling of classes, I.
gi ‘ assignment of space, utilization of space, the format of how we teach.
V ‘ But it would certainly seem that this is an area in which the faculty,
under the leadership, hopefully, of the Senate, ought to assume some
responsibility. We ought to assign some clear priorities that say the
quality of our programs comes first; their existence comes second; before
we build new programs. And these are questions that need to be addressed
‘ ‘ by this body, individually and collectively, and all the rest of the
‘U.? governance bodies of this institution. The Council will be attemtping to

“ do some of this and attempting to get some of the Senate committees busy
on it but basically it is a problem all of us have. I hate to sound like
President Ford saying "Let's win and let's all pull together." But there
is a certain sense of truth in that. We can come out of this situation,
no matter how long it lasts, in better condition if we pay some attention
to some of these things than if we don't. I encourage all of you to do
this. In this vein, if you have any suggestions, or thoughts, or comments,
send them to the Council office, preferably in writing. Phone calls are I.
nice but the scribbled peices of paper tend to get lost. One of two things
, will happen to any suggestions you send in. We will get somebody on
'J i the Council or in the Senate busy on them if they are our business, or
we will attempt to transmit them to the appropriate place if they are

v - . , . ,
.1 somebody else s bus1ness. So we s011c1t your attention, your adv1ce, your
fli assistance, and your help.





_. —_—-w-.umvnn-sunm"' """"""" -e~~ - - - *“W‘ '

Minutes of the University Senate, October 14, 1974 - cont 3911

Chairman Smith recognized the Chairman—elect of the Senate Council, Pro-
fessor Joseph Krislov, who presented a motion, on behalf of the Senate Council,
that the Rules of the University Senate be amended to change Section V—ll, 3.21
pertaining to the scholastic probation, academic suspension and reinstatement
rule for the College of Law, effective immediately. This proposal had been
circulated to the faculty under date of October 3, 1974.

A student beginning the study of law for the first time on or
after the fall semester of 1971 must achieve a cumulative grade
point average of at least 2.0 at the end of the first year of

law study (first and second regular semesters). Thereafter,

the student, in addition to maintaining a 2.0 cumulative over-all
grade point average on all work done, must achieve at least a

2.0 point average for his second year of law study (third and
fourth regular semesters). A student failing to meet academic
requirements will be dropped from the University for poor scholar—
ship. This provision may be suspended by the Committee on
Academic Status and Regulations upon readmission of a student
dropped for poor scholarship.

Any student who receives a grade of E in a required course

must re—register for the course and complete all the requirements
therefor. When a course is retaken for credit, both the initial
and subsequent grade will be reflected on the student's record and
counted in the computation of class standing.

A student who has been dropped from the College of Law will be
recommended by the Dean for readmission only upon the favorable
recommendation of the Academic Status and Regulations Committee. The
Academic Status and Regulations Committee will approve a student's
petition for readmission only if; (1) the student's academic per—
formance was the result of circumstances over which the student

had no control and which he could not reasonably have avoided; (2)
the problems are no longer likely to affect the student's academic
performance; and (3) there is likelihood of satisfactory academic
performance. In making its readmission determination the Committee
will consider all relevant facts and circumstances. Readmission
may be made conditional upon such events or future performance by
the applicant as the Committee deems appropriate.

No student who has been twice excluded will be readmitted without
approval of the University Senate Council.

The Senate approved the change as circulated.

On behalf of the Senate Council Professor Krislov presented a motion that
the Rules of the University Senate be further amended to change Section IV—9,
2.4, relating to admission to the Graduate School, to be effective immediately.
This proposal had been circulated to the faculty under date of October 3, 1974.



Chairman Smith called to the attention of the Senate an editorial change which
needed to be made. The Senate then approved the change in the Rules governing
admission to the Graduate School, with the editorial change. The proposal as
circulated and approved with the editorial change, reads as follows:

A student who is a graduate of a fully accredited institution of
higher learning and has a grade point standing of 2.5 on a ba51s of








.r. _ , , “am“ ,1. . _.,.v.:,,,,,.(,‘,fis‘ 8‘1 i.:..__.-.;;.«..wux1~ 1'2"“ “mm—.9 mm m. w... is. MM; ‘

3912 Minutes of the University Senate, October 14, 1974 — cont

of 4.0 may apply for admission to the Graduate School. All applicants
for admission to degree programs in the Graduate School must submit
scores on the verbal and quantitative portions of the aptitude section
of the Graduate Record Examination. This rule may be waived in indivi—
dual cases upon recommendation of the Director of Graduate Studies in
the individual department or program. But, in cases where waivers are
granted, the GRE scores must be submitted before the end of the first
semester of graduate study. The advanced portion of the GRE may be
required by individual departments or programs if they so desire. A
student with a grade point average of less than 2.5, or a graduate of

a non—accredited institution, may be admitted only after the Graduate
Record Examination (GRE) and other evidence acceptable to the department
and the Dean of the Graduate School is submitted indicating that he is
capable of doing satisfactory graduate work. Individual departments
may establish higher requirements.

Chairman Smith reported that the remainder of the agenda would be devoted
primarily to an information session concerning the Arts and Sciences proposals;
that the Senate would be faced, in the course of this year, with the opportunity
and the responsibility to make some fairly serious and substantial decisions
and recommend to the President on the organization of the University of
Kentucky; that while all of the studies in this area have not been completed,
the Senate standing Committee on Academic Organization and Structure, chaired
by Professor James Criswell, has started its investigation of these matters,
and other Senate standing committees have provided them with information and will
continue to do so; that at the present time there is not before the Senate
for action, particular specific proposals on which the Senate must vote "yes"
or "no"; that what it has is a document and a set of recommendations that
have been presented to the Senate, with a request from the President that the
Senate evaluate them and advise him in this area; that the Senate may, in fact,
end up doing some of the things that have been generated in the A & S proposals,
do none of them, or do something else; that nobody knows yet; that in order for
all Senators to be knowledgeable to the greatest extent possible on the origin
of these proposals, at least what the ”bare bones" preliminary nature of them
is, it was deemed highly desirable to have Dean Gallaher of the College of Arts
and Sciences provide the Senate with the appropriate information concerning
the background and genesis of these proposals and their content and, further,
to have Vice President Cochran of the Division of Colleges provide the Senate
with some perspective on the nature of the administrative organization as it
presently is and what some of the pros and cons and problems may be. Chairman
Smith stated further that this information session was not for the purpose
of generating debate as there would be plenty of opportunity to debate the
issues at subsequent meetings. He then presented Dean Art Gallaher, College
of Arts and Sciences, whose presentation follows.

I want to thank Stan for giving us this opportunity to discuss the
background of the A & S proposal which was made to President Singletary.
My understanding is that our purpose today is to provide general back—
ground information to the proposals which originated in our office and
which were submitted to the President. My comments, which will address

both substance and process, will be organized to reflect the chronology
of our effort.

I became Dean in the fall of 1972 and shortly thereafter the President,
in comments to this body, to a meeting of the Deans, and in personal

communication to me, requested that my office provide him with a proposal

 . ...... .........~-...,..,.. i . V ,..~.:-.
A _——--~nm1nwr£rwm M" —:',w- -

Minutes of the University Senate, October 14, 1974 — cont 3913

to reorganize the College of Arts and Sciences. Our understanding in my
office was that the proposal for reorganization should have the effect of
reducing the size of the College if possible and that it should offer

the potential for improved management, program development, and evaluation.
In developing the reorganization proposal our office thus saw itself in a
staff relationship to the President.

Our first action was to engage Mr. Carlton Williams and to give him
the fairly sizeable task of surveying the Arts and Sciences organization
of a great number and variety of institutions throughout the country. He
did this primarily through catalogs and through intensive correspondence.
He surveyed well over a hundred programs in A & S and engaged in intensive
dialogs through the mails with some 20 universities.

This survey effort was, in the beginning, open-ended because we had
no preconceived notions about the directions our recommendations would
take. Our purpose in the survey then was three—fold: (l) we wanted to
comprehend the range of alternative organizations being tried over the country;
(2) we wanted to examine the variables which seemed to be the major concerns
underlying the organizations now extant, and (3) we wanted to determine
whether there were models currently extant which might be transferable to
the University of Kentucky situation.


Upon examination of some 100 plus A & S programs, three major themes
emerged as critical variables for determining organization in an A & S college.
One of these was the delivery of the general education experience. That
seems to be a function chargeable to A & S in all institutions. The second
theme had to do with the management, the development, and the integration of
undergraduate programs other than general studies. And the third theme had
to do with the delivery of a continuing education experience for graduate
and part—time students. The latter is much more recent as a variable in
defining the organization of A & S effort.



In addition to the survey, visits were paid to a number of state univer—
sities to examine particularly how successful innovations were in those
institutions. Dr. Colson went to the University of Kansas where the clustered
college concept is under way; Mr. Williams Visited North and South Carolina,
particularly the latter where the traditional division of the college is
under way; I visited the University of Oklahoma to look at a university
college setup there; and Mr. Williams also visited three institutions in
Florida where innovations were under way having to do with A & S structure.

As I said, our interest in these institutions was mainly in innovations having
to do with general studies and undergraduate programs.

In August, 1973 we made our first report to President Singletary. This
was a 68—page document which delineated the models of organization based
on the three variables that I have alluded to already: general studies,
undergraduate programs, and continuing education. The report delineated
the primary organizational model in each case and the variations which seemed
to grow out of the model in each case. In addition, in this report to the
President, we superimposed each model and its variants on the current A & S
organization at U.K. so that we could get some notion as to its fit, or lack
thereof, if we just wanted to transfer such a model to this institution. The
report included two appendices delineating examples of the models that are
currently extant in the United States. I should like to emphasize that at
this time no recommendations were made, and this concluded for us the first
stage of our task.







1.7 . . ,g...) in;



. . “awn «9...... wt".::n.l..4.g1u;_1:.‘j?,\xyam—fnt ‘..,-.:.W4.~.1-s.au,__“""" , A mi. -*-~:.. g.»— m... - am»:- --~A‘-——- '

Minutes of the University Senate, October 14, 1974 — cont

The President, after looking over these materials, met with us in
October —— Mr. Williams, Deans Colson, Drennon and myself, and some
others at the meeting —— for a review of the August report just indicated
and at this time requested that we submit to him a plan for reorganization
to be submitted to him by March, 1974 i.e., the spring semester of this
last academic year. Mr. Williams, Deans Colson, Drennon and I then set
forth on the task, and as we did, we delineated a number of premises on
which our thinking would be based. These premises clustered around two
perceptions which we had and the first perception had to do with our View
of the current and future status of the University of Kentucky. So,
based on our perception of what was going on in the institution and
likely to go on in the near future, we established a number of premises:
one, that program development, within the forseeable future, will be within
the constraints of limited resources; two, and concomitant to that, that
the need for accountability of all kinds will therefore be heightened;
three, while we assumed that Arts and Sciences at U.K. will continue to be
the major contributor to the general education experience of students
here, it our view that it should not be the only contributor; four, by the
same token we assume also that A & S should not necessarily be the sole
grantor of the B.A. and the 3.5. degrees. We have assumed further that
a logical way to simplify the organization of the College is to reduce
the number of units contained therein. Another premise is that the
administration of the College should provide — and in fact is obligated
to provide — leadership for the college as a unit, as well as provide
management. And finally, we operated from the premise that any recommen—
dations we made should involve minimal administrative costs.

The second perception developed from the survey data which we had
in hand, and more explicitly the premises which we accepted out of these
data, are as follows: one, that there was no apparent model for success
in the organization of A & S that was readily transferrable to our situation.
Two, while there has been a common strategy to reorganize A & S colleges
by subdividing them into three to five separate colleges, such efforts
seemed successful only where the student population is considerably larger
than our own, such as Ohio State. And the third premise, based on the
survey data, was that based on common usage and tradition, the commonest
of all splits off from the conventional A & S model is the one typically
involving the fine arts area —— music, theatre, dance, and art.

With these premises in mind, we set to work. We had the survey data
already in hand, as well as the solicited and the interview data which
we had generated from other institutions. To add to our data base we did
the following. We looked at the materials in the College on enrollment
patterns, for the departments and for the college as a whole. We focused
the goals and priorities of departmental programs as these were known to
us, or could be inferred by curricula, by staffing patterns, and the like.
We plumbed the experience of the Dean's Office regarding management concerns
and problems over the various program areas and, most important of all, we
attempted to delineate the major program problems common to the College
as a whole, not from the vantage point of any given department, but from
the vantage of our office where the entire operation of 28 departments,

two schools, 450 faculty, the same number of T.A.s, gt cetera, all comes

On the matter of how to reduce the size of A & S, and keeping in mind
especially our premise that only minimal administrative cost could be
tolerated, we sought to do this as rationally as possible. This meant

 , ~n~~~nv~ynM-5:Inm*“"-. """" ""w‘ ~'T« " ' ‘ ‘ ' ‘

Minutes of the University Senate, October 14, 1974 — cont 3915

looking at a number of variables; among others, the populations