xt7qjq0sv60v https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7qjq0sv60v/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1982-03-08  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 8, 1982 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 8, 1982 1982 1982-03-08 2020 true xt7qjq0sv60v section xt7qjq0sv60v 2/.



February 24, 1982

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday, March
8, 1982 at 3:00 PM in room CB 102.


Minutes of meeting of February 8, 1982.

Remarks by Chairman.

Action Items:

a) Revision of University Senate Rules, V. , 4.1.13

dealing with receiving simultaneous graduate degrees.
(To be circulated.)


b) Report of Academic Ombudsman.

Elbe rt W. Ockerman




The University Senate met in reguTar session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 8, 1982,
in Room 114 of the CTassroom Budeing.

James Kemp, presided

Members absent: James App1egate*, A1bert S. Bacdayan, MichaeT A. Baer*, Harry H.
Bai1ey*, Char1es E. Barnhart, NiTTena Beag1e*, James C. BeidTeman, Joanne I. 8e11,
Trudi Be11ardo, Jacques Benninga*, Wi11iam H. BTackburn*, Jack C. B1anton, James A.
Bo1ing*, Robert N. Bostrom*, Britt Brockman, James Buckho1tz, Joseph T. Burch, Robert
Ca1mes*, BradTey C. Canon*, DonaTd B. CTapp, D. Kay CTawson, John Coninn*, J. DonaTd
Coonrod, Phi1ip H. CrowTey, CharTes Cunningham*, George Denemark, David E. Denton*,
Phi1ip A. DeSimone, ATan DeYoung, Louis Diamond, DonaTd F. Diedrich*, Richard C.
Domek*, Joseph Dougherty, Herbert N. Drennon, Jeff Dwe11en, Anthony Eard1ey, Roger
Eichhorn, Graeme Fairweather*, CharTes H. Fay*, Rodney FTynn, PauT G. Forand, NaTter C.
Foreman*, Joseph Fugate, Richard N. Furst, Art GaITaher, Jr., James L. Gibson, CharTes
P. Graves, Andrew J. Grimes*, Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hasan, Roger N. Hemken*, Debbie
HerteTendy, DonaTd Hochstrasser*, Raymond R. Hornback, S. L. A1fred fa, Eugene Huff*,
Gi1bert Joeh1, Keith H. Johnson*, Chery1 Jones, John J. Just, Edward J. Kifwr, MichaeT
J. Kirkhorn, Theodore A. Kotchen*, Shea Lair*, James R. Lang*, Stephen Langston, Teresa
LesTie, Thomas P. Lewis, Thomas T. Li11ich*, CaroTyn G. Litchfie1d*, Ni11iam E. Lyons,
James R. Marsden*, SaTTy S. Matting1y*, Tony McAdams*, Martin McMahon*, Ernest MiddTeton,
H. Brinton MiTward*, John M. Mitche11, Patricia Montgomery, Robert C. Nob1e*, P. J.
O'Connor, Bobby C. Pass*, CTayton R. PauT, Janet Pisaneschi*, David J. Prior*, Peter
Purdue*, Herbert G. Reid, Phi11ip Roeder*, Wimber1y C. Royster, George N. Schwert,
Eugenie C. Scott*, Jon M. Shepard*, D. MiTton Shuffett*, Timothy w. Sineath*, Otis A.
Sing1etary*, Jesse E. Sisken, Gera1d T. S1atin, John T. Smith, Raymond Smith*, Edward
F. Stanton*, Marjorie Stewart, WiTTiam Stober*, Joseph V. Swintosky*, John Thompson,
Lee T. Todd, HaroId H. Traurig*, Enid S. waTdhart*, Marc J. NaTTace*, David Webster,
James H. WeITs, CharTes Nethington, Nadine Wright, Vincent Yeh, Robert G. Zumwink1e*

The Minutes of the Meeting of February 8, 1982, were approved as circu1ated with
the exception of a motion from Senator Stan Smith. Professor Smith moved that the
Ietter from Dr. Schwert of January 30,.1981, and President SingTetary's Tetters of
Ju1y 28, 1980 and August 28, T980, be an addendum of these minutes. The motion was
seconded and passed. Copies of those Tetters are attached to these minutes.

Chairman Kemp began the meeting with the foTTowing remarks:

”My remarks today wiTT be reTativeTy brief, but there are a
few items that I wish to report. First, I want to thank you for
responding to our request for suggestions for study by the Senate
and its committees. Some of the suggestions appear to have merit
and wi11 provide work for some of us next year. There is sti11
time to submit suggestions so if you have something in mind for
study, p1ease send it to the Senate Counci1 Office.

A150, I thank you for submitting names for the various ad—
visory committees. The names were screened and a Tist was sent
to the President. Don't be disappointed if the persons you sug—
gested are not on a committee as there were a Tot more names
submitted than coqu be used.

*Absence expTained


 I sent a notice to Department Chairmen reminding them of
the Senate rule allowing departments to identify graduating
seniors for departmental honors. Some departments take advan—
tage of this and others do not.; It is a relatively easy way
to honor outstanding seniors. The rule for this is in Senate
Rules V., 4.0—4.2. If you are a chairman, I remind you of this.
If you are not a chairman but are interested, I suggest that
you contact your chairman and get this job done because it
does look nice in the graduation program to see your name
there as having received departmental honors.

Since the last Senate meeting, the Senate Council has
taken several actions. First, it has approved the recommenda-
tion that the doctoral programs in French and German be
listed by the Council on Higher Education as 'registration
voluntary suspension.‘ It has approved a revision in the pro-
gram requirements for Master of Arts in Elementary or Secondary
Education with a concentration in reading. It has approved a
joint Doctor of Education program with the University of
Louisville. It has approved a change in the program require-
ments for the M.A. and Ph.D. in Economics and has approved a
change in the guidelines on submitting Senate Committee Reports
to the Senate.

The Senate ballot for the election of new Senators has
been received and the second one will be going out next week.

Several items are in the mill that probably will require
Senate action at the April meeting so mark your calendars for
April l2 and expect to be here longer than I hope you will be
today. We have only one action item for today, and I call on
Professor Don Ivey to present it at this time.“

Professor Ivey, on behalf of the Senate Council, urged hasty adoption of the pro—
posed change in University Senate Rules, Section V., 4.l.3 dealing with a second

bachelor's or master's degree. This was circulated to members of the University Senate
under date of March l, l982.


The Chairman said that it was a rule dealing with a second master's or bachelor's
degree. Motion was moved, seconded and passed to waive the ten—day circulation rule.
The floor was opened for discussion and questions. Professor Campbell said that to her
the rationale seemed contradictory. She felt that perhaps punctuation could take care
of that. She asked if it meant that a student could not get two degrees at the same
time or could not enroll in two degrees at the same time? Chairman Kemp responded that
'a student could not get two degrees at the same time unless there was approval from
two advisors and two Directors of Graduate Studies. Professor Crowe said that was the

meaning from the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee. The proposal passed unani—
mously and reads as follows:


The Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards met on

January 27, l982, to consider the proposed revision of Senate
Rule V., 4.l.3.



The Committee concurs with the revision as approved by the
Graduate Council, Graduate Faculty and Senate Council that
Senate Rule V., 4.l.3 be revised as follows:

V., 4.l.3: A Second Bachelor's or Master's Degree ~—
Students are eligible to qualify for either
a second bachelor's degree or a second master's
degree. For a second bachelor's degree in
the same college, the college will set the
requirements. For a second bachelor's degree
in a different college, the student will be
eligible whenever he has completed the re—
quirements for a second curriculum.


In regard to graduate degrees; however, two
degrees will not be granted at the same time
and simultaneous enrollment in two or more
programs in different fields is not per-
mitted P ], unless approved by student's
advisors and the Directors of Graduate Studies

in the Programs.

Note: Delete bracketed portion; add underlined



The revision is to clarify the rule so that a student knows
that he does not automatically qualify for two degrees but
must have official approval by advisors and Directors of
Graduate Studies in both programs.

Chairman Kemp recognized Dean Marion McKenna who presented the following Memorial
Resolution on the death of Professor Claudine Rita Gartner.

Claudine Rita Gartner — l922—l982

Claudine Rita Gartner, Associate Professor, part—time,
at the University of Kentucky College of Nursing, died at her
home on January 3l, l982. She was born June 28, l922 at
Naperville, Illinois. She received a 8.8. in Nursing at
Alverno College, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in l948 and a Masters
in Nursing Education at St. Louis University, St. Louis,
Missouri, in l954.

Ms. Gartner began her career in nursing in her home
state as staff nurse at local hospitals. After receiving
the 8.5. in Nursing degree. she served as Instructor of
Nursing at Alverno College and upon completion of the Masters
in Nursing Education degree rose to the rank of Associate
Professor (Maternal—Child Health.) She was also a member of
the faculty of the State University of New York at Buffalo
prior to coming to the University of Kentucky in l973.


 Ms. Gartner's vast knowledge of both maternity and
pediatric nursing made her an excellent role model as well
as a highly competent teacher who was held in high esteem not
only by her students, but also her peers. Her contribution
to higher education is well documented by her activities in
the planning and the implementation of the Masters Program in

Nursing at the University. She was a valuable member of the
Graduate Program.

In l979, Ms. Garner was forced into early retirement
because of ill health, but later returned to the College on
a part—time basis as clinical supervisor of nursing students
participating in the Area Health Education System program
throughout the state. Because of her enthusiasm and effort,

the AHES program has been a meaningful learning experience for
our students.

She was a warm human being who enriched the lives of
those who were privileged to know her. She will be missed
by her colleagues and friends.

Mr. Chairman, I request that this be spread upon the
minutes of the University Senate and a copy sent to Ms. Ruth
Assell, with whom she shared her home, and Ms. Bernadine
Gartner, her sister.

(Prepared by Dr. Marion E. McKenna, Dean, College of Nursing)

Chairman Kemp asked the Senators to stand for a moment of silence in tribute
and respect to Professor Claudine Rita Gartner.

Chairman Kemp recognized Professor Michael Brooks, Academic Ombudsman, for the
l98l—82 Academic Ombudsman Report.

Professor Brooks spoke as follows:

”Since accepting the appointment as Academic Ombudsman,
I have met many new acquaintances who, upon hearing the job
title, say 'the what?‘ An Ombudsman must be equal parts de—
tective, counselor, almanac, oracle, labor relations negotiator,
poker player, and bulldog. While operating in an environment
that frequently says that teaching is irrelevant, the Ombuds—
man must believe that students are our future and that teach—
ing is important. The Ombudsman must be capable of maintaining
silence when necessary, and going for broke when holding the
right cards. While I may not be all of those things or pos—
sess all of those talents, I feel I have grown and profitted
from the months of service as Ombudsman. For this I am grate—

It is traditional in a report of this type to thank all
of those people who have enabled me to meet the requirements
of the job. Thanks first must go to President Singletary and
to the committee which appointed me. To those who may have
nominated me, I also say thanks because I have actually enjoyed



the work. The rewards are often intangible, but they are real,
and you have done me a great service. Many have served the
cause, and to try to list everyone would be impossible.

Special thanks, however, must go to the ever-patient staff in
the Registrar's Office, especially Linda Hensley, and to the
Legal Department, especially Gay Elste. Many others have
offered yeoman service, but I shall name only one. The job as
presently structured would be impossible were it not for Ms.
Frankie Garrison, the Administrative Assistant. Her knowledge
of rules and precedents, not to mention the files, is incredi—
ble, as are some of her jokes. More often than not, she is

the reason good resolutions of difficult situations come to pass.

Tradition also dictates that a statistical summary of the
activities of the office be presented. I shall present such a
summary with the caveat that in an office such as this one, it
arguably requires only one case of serious importance to justi—
fy the time and commitment. We have handled many more than
one that were serious, and so I wish to emphasize that aggregate
statistics often obscure the most important issues. In addi-
tion, this report covers only approximately ten months since
the last report was given. Thus the numbers are not directly
comparable to previous years. In the time since the last re-
port, the office has handled 339 single-contact cases and l75
multiple—contact cases. Approximately 302 students have been
involved in the multiple—contact cases and over 930 telephone
calls have been made while dealing with these cases. At the

present time, only 3 cases are pending for the University
Appeals Board.

Arts and Sciences again earns the dubious distinction of
leading the pack with 78 cases. Business and Economics was
second with 34 complaints. Following in order were Engineer—
ing - 9; Education - 6; Fine Arts — 5; Allied Health, Home
Economics, and Nursing — 4 each; Architecture, Communications,
and Social Work — 3 each; Law and Medicine - 2 each; Agricul-
ture, Dentistry, Library Science, and Pharmacy - l each. An
additional 25 multiple-contact cases involved multiple units
or other administrative units in the university.

In terms of student characteristics, Freshmen numbered l8;
Sophomores - 36; Juniors - 48; Seniors - 49; Graduate and
Professional students — 30. A spot—check of grade point
averages of students who have been in the office indicates a
range of .80 to 3.78. While conclusions about student charac-
teristics, especially grades, are risky, it appears that a
trend is developing with older and better (as judged by grade
point averages) students raising more complaints. We should
not be surprised at this given the present state of the
economy and the changing characteristics of students. Re-
turning students and older students represent a significant
proportion of visitors to the Office of the Ombudsman.



Complaints about grades continue to be the number one
source of frustration for our students. Teaching practices
on the part of both faculty and teaching assistants rank high
with increased concern being expressed about the teaching of
part—time instructors. Significantly, only one complaint was
received about teachers who do not speak English as their first
language. Absence policies, course requirements that are un—
clear or excessive, and testing practices also represent
significant areas of student concern. Cheating remains a
significant problem. A common denominator unites these com-
plaints: they all represent areas of teaching that can be
improved with a modicum of effort and common sense, not to
mention concern.

Two general problems appear to be growing, perhaps as a
symptom of the times. Students are experiencing major prob—
lems now in scheduling courses, even those required for their
majors. Classes and sections are being cancelled on short
notice or rescheduled, and students are being bumped from
courses on an gd_h9§_basis. This problem will only grow as
our budget woes continue unless departments, programs,
colleges and other administrative units make positive res—
ponses now.

The second growth area is one that is especially regret—
able. For lack of a better term, I shall refer to it as inter-
personal relations. Three faculty members have initiated
cases including one that involved a death threat. A much
larger number of students have initiated complaints involving
personal problems with faculty. The most serious of these
involved a case of sexual harassment. Others involved verbal
abuse in front of a class and violations of professional
ethics in the case of graduate or professional programs. A
student whose father died immediately prior to her final exam
in a course was about to be denied an incomplete even though
she was doing passing work because she and others in a posi—
tion to verify the death were not believed. Abuse and the
lack of respect for the rights of others is the common de—
Lamina or as student and faculty alike seem to be transferring
many f ustrations, often born of real experience, into aggres—
sive acts directed at convenient targets.

In the midst of such serious problems have been found a
few areas of great humor. Problems which seem serious at the
outset turn out to be misunderstandings which are worked out
easily. Listening to colleagues trying to lead me into a dis—
cussion of who the 'outlaws' are is also interesting, expecially
when their guesses are so often wildly wrong. Perhaps the most
interesting case of this sort, however, involved a person who
was convinced that a student‘s dog was the victim of an orga—
nized dognapping ring working for the university. One sees

many images of the university from the perspective of the



Having listed a number of problem areas and professed to
having grown from this experience, it is time to present a
few brief suggestions for areas of change and few interpreta—
tions born of this experience. I shall begin with a few
straightforward but no less important suggestions:


The university must press forward in the present
effort to define rules and procedures which un—
equivocally state that sexual harassment is wrong
and which prescribe procedures for dealing with it.

The university must follow through on efforts to
restructure the Office of the Academic Ombudsman
along lines suggested in the university self—study
so that it may better serve the university communi—
ty. This is not merely a matter of money although
I know two of us in the office would appreciate
such considerations. Time and professional sacri—
fices are important.

Existing procedures under which faculty may press
complaints against other faculty should be elabo—
rated. Whether this leads to the creation of a
Faculty Ombudsman or to some other solution, I am
convinced that the need for such a set of proce—
dures exists.

The university should work to insure the publica-
tion of a faculty handbook as soon as possible, and
should also seek to insure that the publication of
the student handbook is not curtailed due to budget
cuts. Many, perhaps most, problems exist in part
because the parties involved did not know the rules
or where to find them.

Procedures must be found as soon as possible to

deal with the inevitable and growing problems posed
by course scheduling and the cancellation of classes
or their rescheduling. One simple aid involves the
enforcement of prerequisites for classes. In
addition, priorities for enrollment in oversubscribed
classes must be set and made available to students.
Advising must be improved as a further way of coping.
The practice of scheduling classes in hopes of finding
someone to teach them must be discouraged. From the
student's standpoint, a more honest and efficient way
is to add the course to the schedule late, after an
instructor has been found. 'Dr. Staff' is hopelessly

Mechanisms to establish and protect the professional
rights and privileges of graduate and professional
students (e.g., in the area of authorship on publi-
cations) must be created.



Two general areas remain to be discussed. While the above
areas may not yield to simple solutions, they do manifest them-
selves in rather straighforward ways. The remaining issues are
not simple and they transcend a larger number of issues. The
first has to do with the fact that we all live in a certain kind
of community, while the second has to do with the fact that we
are all a part of a certain kind of society.

We are, first of all, a part of an academic community. Like
other communities, certain values are professed including those
stressing the value of knowledge, a universalistic approach to
life, the importance of all members of the community, and the
positive role of diversity in our life. Yet through our actions
and through the structures used to organize our community, we
often contradict those values. The search for knowledge suppos—
edly is paramount, yet we restrict that search in ways that may
be seen as elitist and frequently self—serving. For the most part,
we do not intend such outcomes, but they happen nevertheless and
despite our expressed values.

Perhaps the best example of such problems may be seen in our
reward structure. We stress the search for knowledge yet we re—
ward only certain activities to that.end. Notably teaching is,
with few exceptions on this campus, defined as unimportant and
as not involving a search for knowledge. Note that the search by
the student for knowledge is overlooked even though it is at the
heart of teaching. Also excluded is the fact that as good teachers,
a search for new ideas and a synthesis of old ideas must be a key
part of our activity if we are to succeed in the classroom.

Within our community, research is dominant and this generally
is as it should be. We have, however, acted as if it were the
only activity, thereby relegating all else to the background. As
in every year past, I know of excellent teachers who have been
denied tenure or promotion, or threatened with such possibilities.
We continue onward with no meaningful programs to evaluate teach-
ing and almost no programs on campus to which a faculty member,
part-time teacher, or teaching assistant might turn for help. A
fundamental contradiction exists: we open our research programs
for all to see, even the public, even to the extent of advertising
them on basketball halftime programs; our classrooms remain closed,
increasingly even to our students, while we avoid evaluation.

One part of our professional life is open while one part remains
closed. Is it because many of us know down deep inside that we
do not know how to teach?

This internal conflict must be addressed for I believe it
lies at the root of many of the problems I have seen as Ombudsman.
We stress diversity and a superficial look at our organizational
structure suggests that diversity is valued. We are indeed di-
vided into a multitude of programs and departments. The structure
obscures the fact that almost all of us on the faculty operate
under terms dictated by a single shared job description which
tears asunder the basic missions of this university. At the risk
of oversimplification, teaching must be given the respect it is due.



Programs for the development and enhancement of teaching must
become commonplace. Those in place must be nurtured. Life in
this community can only be improved to the extent we recognize
the contribution teaching makes to our academic life and stop
treating those who teach as second class citizens. To do
otherwise risks the destruction of the basic values of our
community and the intervention of outside agencies which will
subvert what precious little professionalism is left to us.

These last points remind me that we live in a certain kind
of society. While capable of doing great good, our society is
frequently a mean and hostile place to be. At present we live
in a litigious climate in which little tolerance for error
exists, and the 'benefit of the doubt' is a truly precious
commodity. With apologies to Daniel Shays, I will attempt to
summarize my point by referring to something I call 'Grade's
Rebellion.l Grade's Rebellion is a type of class war being waged
on this campus and perhaps others.' It is manifest on two
fronts: faculty and students.

On the student side we can point to many facts of life and
methods of coping. Many students are having to work more hours
while going to school. As they invest more of their own re—
sources in their education, they are demanding more. As the
job market becomes increasingly competitive, students are plac-
ing more stress on grades. Students are expecting more from
their teachers, and when the product is not delivered, reactions,
often strong, occur. While some cheat and some 'grub' for grades,
and some major in 'pre—rich' with no desire to learn, most sim—
ply want resources to turn to in the form of quality advising and
good teaching. To the extent such resources, which need not
cost a great deal are not provided, we can expect students to
continue to protest. Some departments have already experienced
organized protests from large numbers of students regarding what
was perceived as being inadequate teaching and unfair grading.

On the faculty side of Grade's Rebellion, while I have
seen many actions which are positive, I have also seen many and
varied examples of meanness, carelessness, and laziness. Faculty
members and other instructors continue to violate rules and the
rights of students, often knowingly. For example, the syllabus
rule is frequently violated, expecially in reading or special
courses. Absence policies and policies for make-up exams are
often nonexistent or seriously compromise the progress of a
student. Faculty members frequently leave campus for sabbaticals
or to assume positions elsewhere and leave no records behind so
that their students can complete work, for example. to remove
I grades. It is not uncommon for instructors to give E's in a
course rather than an I simply to avoid paperwork. The latter
practice involves an assumption of immortality that seems ques—
tionable at best, and can have drastic consequences for a student
such as cancellation of registration. I have also seen a number
of faculty members discriminate against certain segments of the
student population. This usually involves unfair performance
expectations directed at outstanding students, or the refusal to



give scholarship or other varsity athletes the same break that
would be given any other student. Perhaps these are honest or
innocent mistakes for the most part. They are discrimination
in its most arbitrary form nonetheless.

I would salute one aspect of Grade's Rebellion, however.
There seems to be an unspoken effort underway to subvert the
practice of grade inflation on this campus. Indications exist
that this is widespread and is enjoying success. If informed
of this and if informed of the new rules and expectations, I
believe most students will support this effort. It can only
enhance their degree and may also be seen as a positive sign
that we are finally beginning to pay attention to our teaching

These are hard times in our society and we face difficult
problems. As we seek to cope, we must not let Grade's Rebellion
get out of hand. We are all, students and faculty alike, vic-
times of the same social processes seeking to subvert higher
education. The university is frequently portrayed as a place
where a connmnal effort among equals carries forth the search
for knowledge. To the extent we allow our own personal frus-
trations to rule us, we will never achieve our community or
societal values. We as a faculty must pull together and work
with students to find ways of solving our collective problems
which compromise the pursuit of knowledge. In times such as
these, studnets have the right to expect our very best effort.

If they have not met our standards, perhaps it is because we are
not meeting theirs. It is time the faculty, especially the
Senate, exerted itself in addressing the very real problems
which face our campus, some of which I have discussed."

The Ombudsman was given an enthusiastic applause. The Chair thanked Professor
Brooks and asked if there were any questions.

Professor Gesund felt Professor Brooks had been rather harsh on the faculty and
perhaps undeservedly so. He wondered if Professor Brooks was aware of the elaborate
student evaluationfiof teaching systems which exist in numerous colleges. He said that
the teaching evaluations were very rigorous in both the Colleges of Engineering and
Architecture and carried out largely by the students. He didn't appreciate hearing
there was no value placed on teaching when he knew for a fact that in Architecture
about 75 percent of merit rating was based on teaching with half of it coming from
student input and in Engineering about 50 percent was teaching rating.

Professor Brooks said that if he had been harsh on the faculty, he felt he had
also been harsh on the students. He said he respected the intensity of Professor
Gesund's reaction. He added that he had hoped to get some reaction. He felt the
issues were critical and the University was at a critical point in its history because
of the things that were happening. He said that in essence what he was trying to say
was that it was up to the faculty to show leadership and pull together in beginning
to deal with the problems. He has been studying teaching evaluations in the College
of Arts and Sciences for at least two years. He did not deny that in some colleges
teaching received more attention than it did in perhaps Arts and Sciences. He said
he would stand on the statement that by and large the University does not evaluate
teaching in nearly as systematic way that he would like. He appreciated the reaction
and was happy to have it.


 There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

E1bert w. Ockerman
Secretary of the Senate





January 30, 1981

Dr. Otis A. Singletary

103 Administration Building

Dear President Singletary:
The Senate Council considers that 1). Kay Clawson, Dean 01’ the
College of Medicine, acted improperly in his handling of recent changes in

the Department of Community Medicine.

1) After receiving a report from his review committee, Dean
Clawson met with the members of the Department of Com-

munity Medicine on the morning of 19 May and requested

that all faculty members in that department relocate in other
departments of the University by 1 July. The 26 May Report
[enclosed] from the College of Medicine stated that in addition

to relocating all members of the Department, the name of the
Department should be changed to reflect its missions. Dur—
ing his 11 August meeting with the University Senate Council,
Dean Clawson indicated that he chose the Review Committee
members with the assurance of obtaining the desired end,

The wisdom of transferring all faculty members from the
Department of Community Medicine, of proposing changes in
the Departmental mission, and of proposing a name change
for the Department is not at issue here. But collectively, and
probably individually, these changes certainly constituted an
alteration in, if not the actual abolition of the department with
the pr05pect of the subsequent establishment of a new depart—

As the executive agent for the Senate, we are concerned here
by the administrative noncompliance with a University regula—
tion which explicitly designates certain responsibilities to the
University Senate. The Governing Regulations clearly require



 Page 2

President Singleta ry

January 30,


that, when a department is to be altered, the proposed
changes are to he considered by the University Senate and
that the Senate is to recommend to you. This was not done
in the case of the Department of Community Medicine.

The Department n