xt7qz60c022f https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7qz60c022f/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1989-04-10  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 10, 1989 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 10, 1989 1989 1989-04-10 2020 true xt7qz60c022f section xt7qz60c022f UNIVERSITY SENAT




3l March 1989

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,

April 10, 1989, at 3:00 p.m. in ROOM 115 of the Nursing Building


Minutes, December 7, 1988 and February 13, 1989

Report from Professor Marcus MCEllistrem, Chairman of Planning
and Priorities Committee and member of Strategic Planning Task

Action Items

a. Proposal to amend Section I — 4.1.7 University Senate Rules
to add to the charge of the Senate Committee on Academic
Planning and Priorities. (Circulated under date of 30
March 1989.)


Proposal to revise Section I - 3.0 & ff. University Senate
Rules, relative to Graduate and Undergraduate Council
vacancies. (Circulated under date of 29 March 1989.)

Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section V — 1.0
ff. to implement a plus/minus marking system for the
College of Fine Arts. (Circulated under date of 29 March


Proposal to revise University Senate Rules, Section V —
4.1.3 and ff. on Concurrent Degree Programs and Second
Bachelor's Degrees. (Circulated under date of 28 March
1989 .



Randall Dahl

If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact Ms.
Martha Sutton (7—7155) in advance. Thank you.




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, April
10, l989, in room ll5 of the Health Sciences Building.

Loys Mather, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Richard Angelo*, James L. Applegate, Michael Baer,
Frank C. Bickel*, David Bingham, Wilford A. Bladen*, Glenn C. Blomquist*,
James Boling*, Peter P. Bosomworth, Darla Botkin, Ray M. Bowen, Stanley D.
Brunn*, Glen Buckner, Roger Calantone*, Joan C. Callahan, Rutheford 8
Campbell, Jr., Edward A. Carter, Jordan L. Cohen*, Mary Sue Coleman*, Clifford
J. Cremers*, Leo S. Demski, Marcus Dillon, Richard C. Domek, Jr., Walter C.
Foreman, Michael Fraley, James Freeman*, Daniel L. Fulks, Richard W. Furst,
Art Gallaher, Jr., Jonathan Glixon*, Thomas C. Gray, Pat Hart, Zafar Hasan*,
Eric Headley, Ronald Hoover, Alfred S. L. Hu*, Craig L. Infanger*, John Just*,
Edward J. Kasarskis*, Lisa King, Doug Kramer, Kenneth Kubota*, Gerald Lemons,
Linda Levstik, Thomas Lindlof, C. Oran Little*, William E. Lyons, Paul
Mandelstam*, James R. Marsden*, Geraldine Maschio, Ernest Middleton*, George
Mitchell, Roy Moore*, Arthur J. Nonneman, Dennis T. Officer*, Jose Oubrerie*,
Alan Perreiah, Deborah E. Powell*, Mary Ann Quarles, Thomas C. Robinson, David
P. Roselle*, Wimberly C. Royster, Edgar L. Sagan, Michael C. Shannon*, Manuel
Tipgos, Glen R. Van Loon*, Marie Vittetoe, Charles T. Wethington, Carolyn A.
Williams, Eugene Williams, Constance P. Wilson*, Emery A. Wilson, and Alfred
D. Winer*.

The Chair recognized Professor Herbert Bruce for a memorial resolution:
1914 - l988

Dr. Harold R. Binkley was born in Fulton County Kentucky in l9l4
and passed away on October 3, l988 at the age of 74 years. After
graduating from the University of Kentucky he served as an Extension
Agent in Agriculture, a teacher of agriculture, and in 1950 he joined
the faculty of Agricultural Education at the University of Kentucky.

Dr. Binkley received his Doctor of Education degree from the
University of Kentucky in l955. He served as Chairman of the
Department of Vocational Education for l4 years, from T965 until his
retirement in l979.

During his 29 years at the University of Kentucky he provided
leadership in agricultural education and vocational education. He
was known as an excellent teacher and administrator and received the
University of Kentucky Alumni Association's Great Teacher award. He
also received the Anerican Association of Teacher Educators in
Agriculture Distinguished Service award and the Anerican Vocational
Education Outstanding Service Award.

*Absence explained.


 Dr. Binkley authored numerous articles in Agricultural Education
Journal, the American Vocational Journal, and other outstanding
Journals in the field of education. He co—authored three books in
the field of agricultural education that are being used extensively
in Kentucky and nationally. In addition to his writings, he was
considered a leader in agricultural education in Kentucky and
nationally. This leadership ability was shown by the number of
committees he chaired and offices he held in the professional
organizations in his field.


During World War II, Harold was in the 90th Infantry Division
and participated in the crossing of the Rhine. He served a second
tour of active duty during the Berlin Crisis in the early l960's. He
retired as a Colonel in Kentucky's lOOth Training Division of the
Army Reserves in l969 and received the Legion of Merit, the nation's
second-highest non-combat military award at his retirement.

During his retirement he came to the office regularly when he
wasn't too busy doing something else. He was active in the Retired
Vocational Agriculture Teachers Association and many civic organiza-
tions where he worked for improving conditions in the Lexington
area. Dr. Binkley was a leader in his church and, in his later years
gave many hours of time and effort to supporting youth through Young
Life organization. He was an enthusiastic participant in University
and community activities, serving in numerous capacities, including
the Mayor's Senior Citizen Advisory Committee.

One of his major projects in retirement was writing a book for
his grandchildren entitled Boyhood Memories. His last book,
Effective Leadership, was in the final stage of completion at the
time of his death.


Dr. Binkley is survived by his wife, Ellen Bruce Binkley, four
daughters, l4 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.

(Prepared by Professor Herbert Bruce, Department of Vocational Education)

Professor Bruce moved that the resolution be made a part of the Minutes
and that copies be sent to Professor Binkley's family. The Chair so ordered
and asked the Senate to rise for a moment of silent tribute.

Chairman Loys Mather made the following announcements:

First of all, the Council on Higher Education is in the process
of revising a policy concerning extended campus programs, particu-
larly extended campus course offerings. This is not the place to
discuss this matter much in detail but I point it out in case you
happen to represent units or colleges which have extended off—campus
programs. You might want to find out more about that. Paul Sears is
the person that will have the information for you. The second piece
of news from the Council on Higher Education is that they are re—
questing performance data on some recently approved new degree
programs. These are programs which have been approved since about


 1980 and there are 17 programs at the University of Kentucky for
which they have requested information, such as has your program
performed along the lines you suggested it would in your original
program proposal. The questions I have seen on this list are not
that difficult I don't think, but the interesting piece of news is
that from now on whatever we propose in new degree programs will be
the criteria by which that program will be evaluated in years down
the road.

I would like to remind all of you about the University Honors
Day on April 28 at 3:00 p.m. Dan Rather of CBS News will be the
guest speaker. Tickets, as I understand it, are gone. The Senate
Council is asking you, however, to grant some leniency to your stu-
dents who are asking to be excused from classes that afternoon. If
you are questioning whether or not they are going to Honors Day or
not, you can rightfully ask if they have a ticket, but we are asking
that you grant that as an excused absence. In particular, I want to
encourage each one of you to attend. You will have your free admis‘
sion through being part of the faculty procession.

Another event that I would like to encourage your attendance is
our University Commencement on Sunday afternoon, May 7 at 1:30 p.m.
The academic procession will begin at l:00 p.m. on the Avenue of
Champions. For those of you who have not been attending in the past
few years, I would like for you to be aware of the fact that students
in the last several years have discovered Commencement and they are
coming out in increasing numbers along with their parents and rela—
tives. The message doesn't seem to be getting through to the
faculty. Our attendance is still back at what it was in the late
70's or early 80's. If you do not have appropriate academic attire,
you can still obtain that through the Bookstore. There is a slightly
different procedure this year. The University will furnish for you
to keep what they call a souvenir cap and gown. That is one you can
reuse as many times as you like. If you prefer having something
other than the souvenir gown, they will also loan one to you out of
the University inventory. That will need to be returned. You can
use it both Honors Day and Commencement. I encourage you to attend
this year.

Senate elections have been completed and letters will be going
out shortly to those who were elected or reelected. In addition, I
will be sending out a letter to those who are newly elected and to
those reelected regarding your preference on committee assignments.
Also, it is that time of year for chairs of senate committees to
begin preparing your annual reports. I will be sending you a letter
later this week of more details. You may want to begin putting those
reports together.

Last weekend I attended the National Symposium on Faculty
Governments in Chicago. This was sponsored by the American Associa-
tion for Higher Education. It was the first time for the event. All
indications suggest that this will be repeated in future years. It
was a very productive event. It was a time where faculty in particu—
lar but with some administrators could discuss issues facing


 university senates, both in terms of organizational issues and in
terms of issues that will likely be facing us in the future as
faculty, senates and so on. I am going to spare you from having to
sit through a lengthy report today on what took place that weekend.
There are some comparisons I want to give you. It is easy for us to
sit here in Kentucky and take our own organization for granted.

First of all, ours is a more established senate and a more
mature one than on many campuses. The procedures and set of rules we
have to live by and given the role and authority we have in estab—
lishing academic policy, there are a number of senates still
aspiring for the level we have at Kentucky. Secondly, there are a
good number of senates that do not have the same major of staff
support and office space that we have here at the University of
Kentucky. Ours is a university senate. That is probably not unique,
but that is probably close to being unique in terms of the people I
talked with at the symposium. By university senate, I mean ours is
composed not only of faculty but also of students and administra-
tors. I should point out some of my associates at the symposium were
not too surprised that administrators were included because that does
occur on some campuses, but they were very surprised that we have
given l8 votes out of about llO votes to students. They found it
hard to believe that students had not come in and taken over the
academic policies of the university. Finally, many senates, senate
councils or executive committees do not enjoy or have the same level
of communication from the administration that we presently have.
There have been several occasions over the last two years that Bill
Lyons pointed out to you last year, and I point out to you this year,
where the Senate Council has sat down with representatives of the
administration and on many occasions with the president himself to
dialogue on what we felt were significant issues and felt that the
faculty viewpoint was being heard. We feel those have been produc-
tive sessions. Those who will be continuing in the senate next year
should perfect and build on that relationship that we now have. We
all have a common goal and that is to enhance the mission of the
university—-teaching, research, and service in making this a better
place to work. I think there is much we can gain from continuing to
work with the administration in recognizing our respective roles of
faculty, administrators, trustees, and governments of this institu—
tion, and particularly after having visited with some other institu-
tions it is easy to take for granted our own circumstances. It is
good for us to reflect upon that.

This will be the last Senate meeting in which I will preside as
chair. On May l6 Donald Leigh will become Council Chair. It has
been an honor and a privilege to serve you in this capacity. I want
to take the opportunity now to thank you all for your cooperation and
for the help you provided in arriving at this place. Particularly I
want to thank members of the Senate Council and members of the
administration for the help and cooperation I have received this
year. There are a few other individuals I want to acknowledge and
thank for their service this year, particularly the officers of the
Senate: Randall Dahl, who is Secretary of the Senate; Martha Sutton,
Recording Secretary; Gifford Blyton, a very capable parliamentarian;
Frankie Garrison and Susan Wilson, Sergeants—at-arms. [The Senate
gave the officers a round of applause.]


 There is one more person who works very tirelessly and very
effectively for the Senate who tries to stay in the background. I am
going to bring her out of the background for a few moments and that
is Celinda Todd, Secretary of the Senate Council. For those who have
worked with Cindy, you will recognize her as being an extremely valu—
able resource, not just for the Senate or Senate Council, but for the
University as a whole. She is a resource person, someone you call on
if you need help in how to get things done through the University.

If you need to try to find out something about the history of academ-
ic policy or whatever the issue might be. She has been very helpful
to us in thinking through strategy, an analyst, whatever. What
particularly struck me last week at the symposium was that at one of
the events they were talking about the kind of support network the
Senate needed. There were a number of senates there who do not have
that support. They described the capabilities and qualities of the
person who ought to hold that office. I sat there very smugly and
thought those are the exact words I had written about Cindy when I
was recommending her for an award last Fall. On that note I think if
you are not aware of it at this point you be reminded that Cindy was
recognized this last year as one of the top ten employees on campus.
We are fortunate that she is part of our group and working for us.
Please join me in extending our thanks to Cindy. [Celinda was given
a round of applause.]

There is one more group I want to recognize because of the
amount of time and effort they are devoting to the operation of our
part of University governance which seems to be growing year by year
and that is the members of the Senate Council. I would like each of
them to stand and remain standing while I recognize them. First of
all, Don Leigh who will become chair in a few weeks. Second, I would
like to recognize Carolyn Bratt who is chair—elect for l989-90;
Charles Ambrose; James Applegate; Robert Guthrie; Paul Eakin; JoAnn
Rogers; Bill Lyons; Marcus McEllistrem and James Boling. The ex
officio members are Mary Sue Coleman, Ray Betts, James Rose. The
student members are Mehran Jared and Joe Elias. [The Senate gave the
members of the Senate Council a round of applause.]

The Senate Council has met most Mondays when the Senate has not
been in session this year. I suspect those who are not here today
are catching up considering they have not had a day off.

The Chair recognized Professor Robert H. Spedding for an announcement.
Professor Spedding's remarks follow:

The University of Kentucky Chapter of the American Association
of University Professors would like to personally invite all of you
to a meeting on Wednesday, April l2 at 3:30 p.m., in room 206 of the
old Student Center at which time Chief Justice Robert Stephens of the
Supreme Court of Kentucky and also a member of the University of
Kentucky Board of Trustees will address the chapter about the courts
and higher education. We would like to welcome everyone.


 The Chairman stated that among the initiatives that were begun this year
by the Senate Council and directed by the Senate were three major efforts that
everyone can take some pride in. One of those is the appointment of an ad hoc
committee to review admissions standards and policies particularly pertaining
to selective admission. Professor Brauch Fugate is chairman of that commit—
tee, and the Chair recognized Professor Fugate for a review of the progress of
that committee. The Chairman pointed out that the Senate Council felt the
reports might be in before the Senate recessed for the summer, but that is not
the case.

Professor Fugate's remarks follow:

The job of our committee is to try to decide how well the goals
of selective admissions are being met. Those goals were set out in
the original report. They were: to decrease the number of poorly
prepared students admitted, to increase the number who were capable
of doing upper division work, to increase the number of outstanding
students, and to insure a diverse student body.

0n the basis of the data that we have seen, I think there have
been substantial improvements in meeting the first three criteria.
There certainly are far fewer students in the very low range of ACT
scores; there are more students in the very high range of ACT
scores. Most of that improvement came about during the first year of
selective admissions, which was the fall of 1984. Since then there
has continued to be a slow, steady improvement. In the first year of
selective admissions, there was a rather sharp drop in the size of
the freshman class. That has since rebuilt and the number being
admitted now is greater than it was in the era of open admissions.
With respect to diversity it is not clear to us how well we are
doing. We are still looking at that.

One of the issues we have addressed is that of trying to insure

a stable size for the freshman class. From the students' point of
view, they get much better advising, much better opportunity to enter
classes, much better access to University housing, if we know in
March that they are coming instead of knowing in August. From a

. department or administrative point of view, we can make more effi—
cient use of our resources of people and money if we know how many
new freshman students there are going to be. If you are awarding
teaching assistantships or hiring part—time instructors, the labor
pool is a lot different in March than it is in August. We have been
looking at various ways that we might accomplish the stabilizing of
freshman class size.

Another major issue we are looking at is requesting discretio—
nary authority for the Director of Admissions. In order to have the
program operate efficiently, he has to be able to adjust his deci-
sions to the contraints he is under from year to year. At the same
time, control of admissions policy rests with the faculty, particu-
larly with this group, and ultimately with the Board of Trustees. We
are looking at ways to try to balance those two somewhat—conflicting


 A third major issue concerns the use of the ACT test. Beginning
this Fall, in October, ACT will make a major revision of their format
in testing, the way they report scores, and the way they break scores
down in subsections. Of course, ACT scores, together with high
school grades, are one way we decide on who is automatically admissi-
ble to the University. It is not clear whether the new ways of
reporting these scores are comparable to the old ways and if we can
make use of them in exactly the same way we have in the past.

Let me briefly touch on some of the problems we have encount-
ered. One problem in trying to judge how well we are handling
selective admissions is that the rules keep changing every year. For
example, the pre-college curriculum came into effect about two years
ago. It was not in effect in l984. This Fall the Admissions Office
started requiring applicants to complete an application form and to
pay an application fee. In the past, any student who checked the UK
first choice box on the ACT test was automatically regarded as an
applicant for the University of Kentucky. This change means that
there are fewer applicants, but we hope that those who do apply are
much more likely to come here. It also means that our old data on
the percentage of those accepted who enroll is no longer valid.

Another major problem is the way that admission from the delayed
pool has been handled. It was conceived when selective admissions
was put into effect that all students in the delayed pool would be
held in that category until March, and then one big admission would
be taken from that pool. It is not practical to operate that way,
because if you wait that long to tell some people that they may come
to the University, you will miss out on students that you would like
to have. It has actually operated as a rolling admissions pool. We
need to look at how it has operated and how it should operate, and we
may propose some changes there.

Finally, there have been a lot of personnel changes in the
Admissions Office. The current director, Joseph Fink, is the third
director in the last two years. Changing rules and personnel have a
big effect on their job, which is a lot larger and more difficult now
than it was five years ago.

The committee has worked quite hard, and we continue to work
hard. Personally, I regard this as one of the most important issues
that the University deals with. Speaking for the committee, we
regard the selective admissions program so far as being a success.

We have heard no sentiment at all to go back to open admissions. We
would like reactions from you, or from anyone else in the University,
faculty and students. You can call, write, or send me messages in
the Mathematics Department. My address is in the University phone
book. Thank you.

The Chair thanked Professor Fugate. He stated that the committee which
Professor Fugate chaired was appointed by the Senate Council as an ad hoc
committee for specific review purposes. The remaining two committees were
jointly appointed by the Council and by the President. These are committees
reviewing the status of women and the status of minorities at UK. He stated


 that the two committees had been working together very closely since they were
appointed. Professor Carolyn Bratt was chairman of the Committee on Women and
Jaunita Fleming was chairman of the Committee on Minorities.

The Chair recognized Professor Carolyn Bratt for a report from both

Professor Bratt's remarks follow:

As you remember, these two committees were appointed to look at
the status of female employees and minority employees at UK. We were
directed not to overlap each other and not to duplicate each other's
work. In order to comply with those directives, the committee look-
ing at the status of women at UK has worked with representatives from
the ad hoc committee on the status of minorities to develop three
surveys. We broke the employee population down into three groups.

We are looking at faculty, administrators and professional staff in
the second group, and we are looking at hourly employees as our third
group. Because each group has so many people in it, we are only
going to be able to look at a sample of each group rather than
sending surveys which we have developed to every member of each one
of those groups. Some of you may have already received the faculty
survey. That went out in the mail the middle of last week. I have
already received information that some of you have filled out the
survey and returned it to the Survey Research Center. One of the
things I did want to stress is that if you or one of your colleagues
or somebody with whom you work received one of these surveys, it is
very important that they fill it out and send it back because we are
not doing the entire employee population at UK.

He also realized that in addition to the survey instrument, we
needed to gather material from personal interviews. The committee
will be interviewing respondents to the survey who have indicated
that they are willing to talk to us. He also wanted to put our
experience here at UK in the context of our benchmark institutions.
To accomplish that, we have begun a process by which we are trying to
make comparisons bebveen the progress of women and minorities at UK
and at our benchmark institutions. Some of that data gathering has
taken the form of a survey instrument that has gone to affirmative
action officers at all of our benchmark schools to find out how their
programs work and how they evaluate the kinds of affirmative action
programs they have been using. We are also looking at national
studies to help us put the results of our work within the national
context of major research institute.

You should also be aware of the fact that there will be an
attempt to look at particular portions of the employment situation at
UK. For example, we will look at the hiring of upper level people by
looking at the appointment and functioning of search committees.
Those of you who have served on major search committees may discover
in the mail in the next month or so a questionnaire asking you to
provide information on the search you chaired.


 The major thrust of what Juanita and I would like to ask of you
today is to please tell those people with whom you work of the need
to fill out these surveys. The faculty survey should have been
received by everybody last Friday or today at the latest. The admin-
istrator - professional survey should be out beginning next week, and
the hourly staff survey should be out by the end of next week. It is
critically important that you help us get out the word that we want
their responses.

In case you have not received one of the surveys and wondering
what it covers, a number of the questions concern climate issues at
UK for employees. Another set of questions goes to the effect of the
affirmative action programs on our campus on the progress of minori—
ties and women. We are also looking at problems of women and
minorities within the three groups of employees we have identified.

The ultimate aim of our report is more than just to describe the
problem. We hope to come up with solutions that can be implemented
and measured. Thank you.

The Chair expressed his appreciation to the committees for their efforts
this year. He stated that he hoped everyone was aware that the University is
developing a strategic plan. He said that the representative of the faculty
on the overall steering committee for the University planning process is
Professor Marcus McEllistrem. He was selected for that by virtue of the fact
that he is Chair of Senate Planning and Priorities Committee. The Senate
Council was quite delighted that the administration invited Professor

McEllistrem to be a part of that planning process. The Chair recognized
Professor McEllistrem for a report.

Professor McEllistrem's remarks follow:

First, I want to apologize to the Academic Planning and Priori-
ties Committee for the fact that we have not met yet. Part of the
reason is that I wanted to get a little further into the character of
the strategic planning process, so I would have some substantial
issues to present to the Committee. The nature and character of the
planning process is probably the most important thing the Committee
needs to look at. The reason I asked to report to you today is
because Strategic Planning is a process we all need to examine. It
is a new process at the University of Kentucky, unlike anything we
have done in the past.

The time of the process and the way it was carried out to date
reflected two concerns. One is that the University have something in
place to inform the budget process. It has been difficult in the
past to develop a budget and then develop planning for what the bud—
get allows. The idea here is to have some strategic planning in
place to inform the budget process first. The budget has to go to
the Council on Higher Education by July 15. It has to be processed
by the University starting as early as June. Those are very sharp
deadlines on the first iteration of the planning process.


 Some universities have done planning by starting with faculty in
individual units and working up through to the central administra—
tion. The difficulty of that is that the faculty must first become
aware of the process, and coherent in the way it is carried out.

That takes a long information-gathering and learning period for all
of us as faculty members. The decision was made that this year,
through the first iteration, the process would be a top-down one
which flows from central planning with a group led by Joan McCauley,
director of University planning.

The idea behind forming "Strategic Directions" is to focus the
developments of and move toward coherence of the way UK missions are
conceived. Strategic Planning does not define the University; it is
not that broad. It does coordinate directions for development. It
does this in part by addressing priorities for units and the whole
institution, and finally also provides definitive measures of pro-
gress for evaluation. It is very important to note that strategic
planning is an ongoing process, through a sequence of iterations.

The first stage is an institutional overview, which will not be
complete at this stage. It will be forwarded to individual units in
late Spring. We need faculty members and students to work on the
results, develop them, find out what is incomplete or wrong in the
overview, and feed corrections back to the University's larger
Planning Committee. That Committee will reevaluate the process.
This second stage of the iteration could begin as early as next
Fall. During the next year there will be a more relaxed pace as
there is no budget cycle next Summer.

The second stage will begin as an internal process in which we
in the units are directly involved. If the process works, we will
each have our own strategic plans for our units, and we will measure
ourselves by the progress we make in achieving realistic goals. If
the University's overview functions properly, we will have a great
deal more coherence in our individual developmental plans than we
might othenvise have had.

I want to give you some idea of the first iteration of the
process which was led by the Planning and Budget Office leadership,
Joan McCauley and Norma Northern. These are really outstanding
people, who beautifully coordinated a complex process involving
diSparate parts of the total University effectively, so that momentum
was conserved throughout the working sessions. They prepared 9 a.m.
to 4 p.m. workday sessions about twice per week throughout much of
February; half of the sessions were 1 p.m. to 4 or 5 p.m. through a
large part of March. The people who were on the Working Group are:

Joan and Norma leading the mechanics of the process

Dan Reedy representing Graduate Studies and
Susan Scollay research

Paul Nillis Information systems, including
Doug Hurley libraries