xt7r4x54jg6g https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7r4x54jg6g/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1974-04-08  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, April 8, 1974 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 8, 1974 1974 1974-04-08 2020 true xt7r4x54jg6g section xt7r4x54jg6g ‘4

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL 8, 1974 3752

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, April
8, 1974, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Smith presided.
Members absent: Lawrence A. Allen, Lyle N. Back, Harry Barnard*, Charles E.
Barnhart, Robert P. Belin*, Ben W. Black, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Robert N. Bostrom*,
Garnett L. Bradford*, John M. Bryant, Joseph A. Bryant, John L. Butler*, Jamie
Chase*, Alfred L. Crabb, M. Ward Crowe, T. Z. Csaky*, Donald F. Diedrich*,
Bette J. Dollase*, Anthony Eardley, Roger Eichhorn*, Claude Farley, Elizabeth
Finkenstaedt*, Juanita Fleming, Thomas R. Ford, Lawrence E. Forgy*, Michael
B. Freeman*, James E. Funk*, Art Gallaher, John G. Gattozzi*, Milton E. Gellin*,
Richard E. Gift*, Ward 0. Griffen*, George W. Gunther, Jack E. Hall,
Joseph Hamburg, Holman Hamilton*, J. Merrell Hansen*, George W.
Hardy, Virgil W. Hays*, Ron Hill*, Nancy Holland*, Raymond R. Hornbacx, Raymon
D. Johnson*, John J. Just*, William F. Kenkel, James B. Kincheloe*, Don Kirk—
endall*, Walter Langlois, David L. Larimore*, Robert L. Lester*, Albert S. Levy,
Donald R. March*, Susan A. McEvoy*, Marion E. McKenna*, Michael P. McQuillen*,
William G. Moody*, Alvin L. Morris*, Vernon A. Musselman, Paul Oberst, Elbert
W. Ockerman*, Blaine F. Parker*, Harold F. Parks*, Doyle E. Peaslee, Carl Peter*,
Jean Pival, William K. Plucknett*, James A. Prestridge*, Donald A. Ringe*,
Wimberly C. Royster, Robert W. Rudd*, D. Milton Shuffett*, Otis A. Singletary*,
David Spaeth*, Robert H. Spedding, Earl L. Steele, Marjorie S. Stewart, Andy
Strickland, Louis J. Swift*, William C. Templeton*, Paul A. Thornton, Jacinto
J. Vasquez*, John N. Walker*, M. Stanley Wall, Daniel L. Weiss*, Paul A. Willis,
Miroslava B. Winer*, Ernest F. Witte*, Fred Zechman*.

The minutes of the regular meeting of March 11, 1974 were approved as
circulated.

Chairman Smith made the following remarks to the Senate:

There are a number of matters to report to you from the Council
Office. The first, of course, is to remind you that there will be a
called meeting of the Senate on Monday, April 22, 1974, here at 3:00
o'clock, the usual meeting time. The agenda will include the annual
report from the Ombudsman, the annual committee reports which will be
circulated and you will have the opportunity to query the chairmen of
the standing committees. There are a number of circulations, some of
which we have on the agenda today, although we doubt that we will get to
them, which will be forthcoming in the near future.

Another action which I might report to you is that the Committee on
Admissions and Academic Standards was asked to explore two issues: one,
the question of the 120 hour bachelor's degree, or first degree; and two,
the status of SAT—ACT admissions tests. The Committee established sub-
committees and conducted these studies. It has come to the conclusion,
at the present time, that there is no particular benefit to be gained by
having the Senate or the Senate Council continue to pursue the question
of 120 hours for every degree. Their investigation shows that most of
the degrees in most of the colleges are either 120 degree hours already or
for those that are not, there are reasonably good reasons why they are not;
for example, Colleges of Engineering, Pharmacy, etc. The question was
raised about the use of ACT or SAT tests as admission documents. After
having received considerable testimony examining various documents and
reports, it was the conclusion of the Admissions and Academic Standards
Committee that we continue to use the ACT tests the way we do now but it

*Absence explained

    
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
   
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 

Minutes of the University Senate, April 8, 1974 — cont

would be desirable to make an inclusion in our Catalog noting that

students who do not have them or who had already taken the SATs may
submit these. This will be taken care of so that there will be no “£5
action forthcoming on these items. ‘

In addition, the Senate Council has been engaged in a number of other
activities and I might report them to you briefly. We dealt with a
document which has been circulated to you which attempts to deal with i
the ”not in class" problem. The University has a problem in which students
sign up during advance registration, occasionally even show up and pay ‘
their bill, show up on class rolls, but are simply never there. We have ‘
great difficulty in finding them, getting them off the rolls, etc. In ;
some cases, because they are there and they never show, they are given ‘
Es, Ws, etc. so we have some Rules changes coming attempting to address
flmtpnwlmn

We received a report from the Academic Facilities Committee dealing
with a number of matters all of which have been handled in a manner ‘_
satisfactory to everybody without coming to the floor. They ran the €3§
gamut from bicycle paths to input on new buildings, etc. and all of 3

these matters are being dealt with in a fairly successful fashion.

The Senate Council had two meetings of a fairly lengthy nature,
one of them with Dr. Zumwinkle, Jack Hall, Dr. Ockerman, relating to the
question of the confidentiality of student records, particularly in the
residence halls. The meetings were fruitful; we are making progress;
and some guidelines are being prepared in those areas attempting to
guarantee further improved confidentiality of student records; and when
that activity is finalized, it will be publicized and circulated to you. ‘

The Council also met with Vice President Cochran. We spent some 1
time discussing the question of associate degrees, certificate programs,
and other activities of an academic nature which are less than the
conventional four-year degree graduate programs that we normally deal
with within the University System; and we are continuing to explore

that general area. 6%3

Two other activities the Council has embarked upon which may be i
of interest to you are the establishment, in conjunction with the Under-
graduate and Graduate Councils, and activation of a joint study group
to deal with various recommendations, generally known as Standard Nine
of the Southern Association, dealing with extension credit, residence
credit, and other matters. This will be a major item of business probably
the first thing in the fall.

We have also requested the Academic Programs Committee to assume, and
it has done so, responsibility for some very broad questions dealing with
the question of the definition of "programs", not in the most limited
sense, but in the broadest sense. In this context that Committee and the
Council Office are working jointly with the Budget Office, with the
Planning Commission headed by Dr. Paul Sears, and others to attempt to ,
provide a comprehensive perspective which will allow all of us to deal lA
with and discuss matters in a common context. It is one of those
mechanical things which is a great deal of work which, hopefully, will
be of great benefit but which somehow does not come on looking as spec-
tacular; nevertheless it is very important.

  

     
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  

 

4‘31 V

  

Minutes of the University Senate, April 8, 1974 — cont

3754

 

This is the sum and substance of what has been going on in the
Senate Council Office with one exception. As most of you know, there
is a Recognition Dinner this evening honoring those people retiring from
the University. There are approximately 300 people attending that dinner
and the Council Office in the person of Ms.Cindy Todd has assumed a
fantastic burden of making reservations, getting certificates prepared and
a whole lot of work that has to be done by somebody somewhere. I would
like to say on my behalf, Cindy, that we appreciate it. You don't get
too much recognition around here sometimes. Ms.Todd was accorded a
round of applause.

The Chairman stated that he would like to review two matters before em—

barking on the next item on the agenda, the Krislov Report, with the hope that
they would expedite action on that Report.

The first matter is the parliamentary situation. There are 10
Recommendations in the Krislov Report. They will be handled individually.
I will call on the Secretary of the Senate Council who will move, on
behalf of the Council, Whatever the motion in the circulation says. That
will place the main motion, which is the Recommendation substantially as
circulated and discussed in the past, with some changes, on the floor.
Under the Rules of the University Senate we can circulate with the item
amendments submitted in writing signed by two or more Senators; in
several cases we have several amendments. The assumption that is made
at this point is that the amendments have been received and are placed
on the floor, and I will so announce, in the order in which we received
them; therefore, the Secretary will move a motion, I will then announce
that Amendment 1 is on the floor and is the item of business and we will
immediately be discussing Amendment 1 of whatever Recommendation we are
dealing with. At that point there are then two levels of motion on the
floor —— the main motion and an amendment. You can only have one other

 

 

amendment——a second rank amendment —u and that is an amendment to the amend—

ment. So until we complete all of the circulated written amendments, it
is not possible to have another first rank amendment to the main motion so
until we get through with the amendments with each Recommendation, we will

be talking about the amendments one at a time, and amendments to the amend—
ments. Since we can never have more than two ranks of motions on the floor,
in addition to the main motion, we can never have more than one more motion

from the floor before we vote until we get through all the amendments to
that particular recommendation and back to the main motion.

There are two other items of concern. One is what is known as "the
question", "the previous question". In a parliamentary sense, a member
of this body yelling "question" or standing up and being recognized and
saying ”question" is simply a request from that Senator that the Chair

get on with it and try to get a vote. If you wish to cut off debate, cloture,

Stop debate, and vote on the motion on the floor, what you have to do is
one of two things: in the older sense you "move the previous question".
If you don't know what that means, there is a much better way of doing it
and one that is recommended and that is to say "I move that we vote immed—
iately". If that is moved and if it is seconded, it is a non—debatable

motion. All we do is vote. It takes a two-thirds vote to pass. If that
vote passes, there is no further debate and we immediately vote on the

motion on the floor. Technically, there is only one motion in there that

 

cc:

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes of the University Senate, April 8, 1974 — cont

you vote on. If you want to move to vote immediately on second rank
amendment, we vote on that and then we go back to talking on the first

rank amendment. If you want to vote on everything that is on the floor

at the moment, you have to move to do that. I would suggest that you

may not want to do that in most cases. Roll call votes, under the Rules

2f the University Senate, can be directed by the Chair or require a

vote of 25 per cent of the members present and voting. I have received
requests from a number of people present to speak and to make some clarifying
comments and I will try and insert them as we go along.

 

The Chairman called on Ms. Constance Wilson, Secretary of the Senate Council,
who moved to submit the following recommendation to the President for trans—
mission to the Board of Trustees for inclusion in the Governing Regulations
X—B.2 and for inclusion in the Administrative Regulations II 1.0—1.

Recommendation:

(1) The applicability of prior work to the tenure criteria at the Univer-
sity of Kentucky shall be carefully reviewed on an individual basis by

the prospective faculty member, the department chairman and the dean.

The following questions shall be examined:

a) Did the institution of prior service have similar expectations
regarding formal criteria for promotion and tenure as those which
prevail at the University of Kentucky?

b) Were teaching and service loads at the institution of prior
service arranged in order to assure faculty members adequate time
for investigation and scholarly or creative productivity?

c) Were the measurable achievements of the
institution of prior service such that they
part of the achievements to be evaluated by
Kentucky in consideration for promotion and

faculty member at the
should be counted as
the University of
tenure?

d) Did the faculty member utilize the same knowledge and skills
and have the same career goals at the institution of prior service
which he will be applying at the University of Kentucky?

e) Does employment at the University of Kentucky involve a change
of career and, therefore, a change in the expectations which should
be placed upon measurable achievements within a particular period
of time?

(2) In all cases where a period of prior service of a prospective faculty
member involves significantly different institutional objectives or signifi—
cantly different professional activity, all or part of the period of prior
service may be eliminated from consideration in determining the period of
review for tenure at the University of Kentucky.

(3) Where it has been determined that all or part of the prior service
shall be eliminated, a specific period of employment prior to tenure
review shall be agreed on and a specific date for review stipulated in

   
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
   
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
   
 
  
   

     
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    

> Minutes of the University Senate, April 8, 1974 — cont 3756

, writing by the faculty member, the department chairman, the dean and

a a committee composed of the Chairmen of the Area Committees before being
figh reported to the appropriate vice president at the time of the faculty

7' member's initial appointment.

Amendment (1), submitted by Professors Wagner and Goldman, became the next
{ order of business, and reads as follows:

(1) It is moved that Recommendation 1 be amended in item (1) above,

line 4, to read: ". . .department chairmen, a Committee composed of

the Chairmen of the Area Committees, and the dean." Add next sentence:
1 "Normally, the review by a Committee composed of the Chairmen of the
Area Committees should be made as early as possible in the consideration
of an applicant, preferably before and/or during the interviewing pro—
cedure."

The Chairman made the following remarks at this point:

6&5 This amendment and the second amendment which follows it deal with
the question of where there is going to be a committee which does some
5 review. The main motion also includes a statement as to where there is
a committee which will do some review. At the present time in the main
motion that review is in paragraph (3) and is done after somebody is hired.
If you pass amendment (1), and (2), you will then have a committee which
is contacted informally early in the hiring procedure and is also contacted
for formal approval after the hiring is done. In other words, the amend—
ments are such that you could have any possibility. You can have review
‘ at the beginning of the hiring period and not at the end; you can have
; review at the end and not at the beginning; you can have review at both;
and you can wipe it out and have review at none. So the amendments are
set up to give you all the possibilities.

At this poiht in the meeting Dr. Joseph Krislov rose to make the following
correction of a statement he had made in the Senate meeting of March 11, 1974:

@flh I would like to take the floor to correct a statement that I made
‘i regarding the review procedure. I think it is of some consequence.
\

The question that was addressed to me was how this review procedure
came into the proposal. I indicated correctly that the ad_hgg committee
had voted five to four against it. It then went to the Senate Council.
There was considerable discussion of the review procedure in the Council,
largely following the AAUP suggestion of a review. We then discussed

‘ this with the President and I think I indicated that the review procedure
came in, largely because of the President's interest in it. That is not
accurate. I have discussed it with the President. Although we spent a
good deal of time talking about this, he has indicated that he does not
wish to be counted on either side of the issue and he would like you to
make your decision uninfluenced by any predilection of his. I apologize d
for the error and if I have mislead any of you, I again state that the
President has not taken a position on this and I would urge you to consider

A

Chairman Smith stated that two additional amendments had been received after the
circulation of the March 22, 1974 Krislov Report with its amendments; namely,

“ it solely and completely on its merits. ’i

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3757 Minutes of the University Senate, April 8, 1974 — cont

an additional amendment to Recommendation 1 and an additional amendment to
Recommendation 3; that these two additional amendments were handed to Senators
as they entered the meeting, and that he would interject them at the pertinent
places as the consideration progressed.

By a hand count of 46 to 42 the Senate approved amendment (1) to Recommendation
1. That paragraph as amended and approved now reads:

(1) The applicability of prior work to the tenure criteria at
the University of Kentucky shall be carefully reviewed on an in—
dividual basis by the prospective faculty member, the department

chairman, a Committee composed of the Chairmen of the Area Committees,

and the dean. Normally, the review by a Committee composed of the
Chairmen of the Area Committees should be made as early as possible
in the consideration of an applicant, preferably before and/or during
the interviewing procedure.

Amendment (2), submitted by Professors Wagner and Goldman, became the next
order of business and reads as follows:

(2) It is moved that Recommendation 1 be amended in item (3), lines
5—6, by deleting the following: ". . .and a committee composed of the

Chairmen of the Area Committees . . ."

Chairman Smith remarked that this proposed amendment would have the effect of
placing the review on an informal basis in paragraph (1) of Recommendation

1 and if the Senate deleted the wording as proposed in amendment (2), there
would be no formal review later on.

The Senate then voted to approve amendment (2) to delete ". . .and a committee
composed of the Chairmen of the Area Committees . . ." from item (3). Item
(3) as amended now reads:

(3) Where it has been determined that all or part of the prior
service shall be eliminated, a specific period of employment

prior to tenure review shall be agreed on and a specific date for
review stipulated in writing by the faculty member, the department
chairman, and the dean before being reported to the appropriate

vice president at the time of the faculty member's initial appointment.

The amendment on the floor became amendment (3) submitted by Dr. Goldman and
Mr. Damon Harrison, to add a paragraph (4) to Recommendation 1 to read:

(4) In the case of (2) above, the faculty member shall, for one
year from.the date of the contract of appointment, have the right
to reinstate all or part of the period of prior service which was
eliminated from consideration in determining the period of tenure
review. Such reinstatement must be by a signed letter to the
dean submitted through the department chairman.

Dr. Bruce Westley rose to speak in opposition to amendment (3). He stated that

it was the AAUP Chapter that raised the question of whether the faculty approved

of paragraph (1) of the Krislov Report and at the same time they had the
opportunity to check with the national office about this. He stated that what
was stressed in their conversations with the national office was that an early
determination be made of the maximum number of years of probation that would

     
 
 
 
 
  
 
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
   

 Minutes of the University Senate, April 8, 1974 — cont 3758

be allowed, that it be stated in writing, and that it be arrived at at the
earliest possible moment. He stated that approval of amendment (3) to add
the additional paragraph (4) would prohibit this and he did not think the
national office would smile on this action.

Dr. Goldman responded that the proposed amendment did not, in any way, affect

the fixing of the maximum probationary time; that what it would do is give the
professor, during his first year here, an opportunity to reduce the amount of
probationary time; that it could be reduced but not lengthened and that the
lengthening is the action that must be of the most concern to the national office.

Question was asked of whether the faculty member would have to justify a change
of mind. The Chairman responded with a ”No."

Dr. Reedy asked how many times during that first year the individual would be
allowed to change his mind. The Chairman responded "Presumably once"; that

one would have the right to reinstate all or part of the period of prior service
but that once it is reinstated, it is reinstated; that he had already had the
option once of ESE having it count and that being wishy-washy would be prohibited.

By a hand count of 51 to 50 the Senate voted to disapprove the inclusion of the
additional paragraph (4) in Recommendation #1.

The amendment on the floor became amendment (4) submitted by Doctors Gabbard
and Cox and received after the circulation of March 22, 1974, to wit:
Move to amend paragraph (3) by deleting the words ". . . and reviewed
by a committee composed of the Chairmen of the Area Committees. . ."

Since the substance of this motion was the same as amendment (2) which had
already been approved by the Senate, Professors Gabbard and Cox withdrew amend—
ment (4).

Dr. Fletcher Gabbard presented the following amendment to amendment (1) of
Recommendation 1, to add:

A part of the charge to the Committee composed of the Chairmen of

the Area Committees, in performing this review function, shall be

to study the necessity for the review procedure within the community
of the University of Kentucky. In conducting this study, the
Committee should consult department chairmen, and other persons,
officials, and groups, as the Committee deems appropriate, to
determine if this review function is necessary. By the end of the
Fall Semester, 1974—75, the Committee shall recommend to the President
of the University of Kentucky as to whether this function shall be
continued or not.

Question was asked of whether this was a primary or secondary amendment. The
Chairman responded that it was a first rank amendment and is subject to an amend—

ment to the amendment.

Motion was then made to amend the amendment to replace the words "the President”
in line 8 to "the Senate". Dr. Gabbard and Dr. Sears, the seconder, accepted
this change without taking a vote.

 

   
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
   

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3759 Minutes of the University Senate, April 8, 1974 — cont

Motion was made to amend the amendment to change the date from 1974—75 to
1975-76.

Following limited discussion the Senate voted to change the date of implementa—
tion to 1975—76.

The amendment to amendment (1) of Recommendation 1 to add a paragraph, amended
twice, now reads:

A part of the charge of the Committee composed of the Chairmen of
the Area Committees, in performing this review function, shall be to study
the necessity for the review procedure within the community of the Univer—
sity of Kentucky. In conducting this study, the Committee should consult
department chairmen, and other persons, officials, and groups, as the
Committee deems appropriate, to determine if this review function is
necessary. By the end of the Fall Semester, 1975—76, the Committee shall
recommend to the University Senate as to whether this function shall
be continued or not.

Dr. Sears referred to the words "tenure criteria" in line 1 of item (1) in
Recommendation 1. He presented a motion that these words be deleted and the
words "probationary period" be substituted. He referred further to the

words "criteria" in line 2 and "tenure" in line 3 of item (1) a). He stated
that criteria for tenure is inappropriate; that we have criteria for ranks but
not for tenure; and that this paragraph could be cleaned up by deletion of the
words "and tenure" from the third line of item (1) a). The Senate then voted
to substitute the words "probationary period" in the first line of item (1) and
to delete the words "and tenure" from line 3 of subparagraph a).

The Senate then voted to submit Recommendation 1, as amended, to the President
for transmission to the Board of Trustees for inclusion in the Governing Reg-
ulations, X-B.2 and for inclusion in the Administrative Regulations, II l.O—l.

Recommendation 1, as amended and approved, reads as follows:

Recommendation 1: Prior Service Rule

(1) The applicability of prior work to the probationary

period at the University of Kentucky shall be carefully reviewed
on an individual basis by the prospective faculty member, the
department chairman, a Committee composed of the Chairmen of

the Area Committees, and the dean. Normally, the review by

a Committee composed of the Chairmen of the Area Committees should
be made as early as possible in the consideration of an applicant,
preferably before and/or during the interviewing procedure. The
following questions shall be examined:

a) Did the institution of prior service have similar expectations
regarding formal criteria for promotion as those which
prevail at the University of Kentucky?

b) Were teaching and service loads at the institution of prior
service arranged in order to assure faculty members adequate
time for investigation and scholarly or creative productivity?

     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
   

       
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
    

Minutes of the University Senate, April 8, 1974 — cont 3760

c) Were the measurable achievements of the faculty member
at the institution of prior service such that they should
Ea be counted as part of the achievements to be evaluated by
" the University of Kentucky in consideration for promotion
and tenure?

d) Did the faculty member utilize the same knowledge and p ,
skills and have the same career goals at the institution of 3 f
prior service which he will be applying at the University "
of Kentucky?

6) Does employment at the University of Kentucky involve a
change of career and, therefore, a change in the expectations
which should be placed upon measurable achievements within

I a particular period of time?

a A part of the charge to the Committee composed of the Chairmen
in“ of the Area Committees, in performing this review function, shall
mp be to study the necessity for the review procedure within the
community of the University of Kentucky. In conducting this :
study, the Committee should consult department chairmen, and ‘
other persons, officials, and groups, as the Committee deems
appropriate, to determine if this review function is necessary.
By the end of the Fall Semester, 1975—76, the Committee shall

\ recommend to the University Senate as to whether this function
shall be continued or not.

faculty member involves significantly different institutional
objectives or significantly different professional activity, all
or part of the period of prior service may be eliminated from

i consideration in determining the period of review for tenure at
l the University of Kentucky.

- J
i (2) In all cases where a period of prior service of a prospective i d
1

(3) Where it has been determined that all or part of the prior

ewe service shall be eliminated, a specific period of employment

1 prior to tenure review shall be agreed on and a specific date

1 for review stipulated in writing by the faculty member, the
department chairman, and the dean before being reported to the V
appropriate vice president at the time of the faculty member's
initial appointment.

1 The Chairman called on Ms. Wilson who moved to submit the following recom— i
mendations to the President for inclusion in the Administrative Regulations or M:
other appropriate implementation. ‘

Recommendation:

(1) The following guidelines are suggested for faculty files to be main— f
tained jointly by the Chairman and the individual faculty member, because 4. ,
all considerations of promotion and tenure require thorough documentation 7

of the faculty member's record of pertinent activities in the University Q. j
as well as all relevant actions involving the individual's faculty status. H i

a) A statement specifying whether the chairman has or has not recommended
the faculty member for tenure or promotion.

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
   
   
   
  
  
   
  
   
 
   
  
  
   
  
   
 
 
   
   
    
 
  
   

Minutes of the University Senate, April 8, 1974 — cont .

b) All correspondence between chairman and faculty member concerning
appointment or faculty status.

c) A curriculum vitae which shall be updated at least annually.

d) Copies of publications and published reviews or letters concerning
publications.

I
\
R

e) Copies of faculty performance reviews.

This file shall be available to the faculty member, except for letters of [
recommendation and written judgments obtained under conditions of confidentiafiwfi

Amendment (1), submitted by Professors Westley and Tipton, became the next
order of business and reads as follows:
(1) It is moved to amend by replacing the word "suggested" with ‘
the word "established" in item (1), line 1.

The Senate approved this amendment.

Amendment (2), submitted by Professors Westley and Tipton, became the
next order of business and reads as follows:

(2) It is moved to amend by replacing the word "chairman" with
the word "department" in subparagraph a), line 1.

Chairman Smith stated that the Senate Council had disapproved this proposed amend- l
ment because it is inconsistent with the phraseology in the remainder of the
Governing Regulations; that the Chair had suggested to Professor Westley that he
might wish to withdraw this amendment. Professors Westley and Tipton indicated

they were agreeable to withdrawing this amendment and it was so done.

Amendment (3), submitted by Professors Cox, Govindarajulu, and Freeman I
became the next order of business and reads as follows:

(3) It is moved to amend by deleting subparagraph a) and redesignat— \
ing the remaining paragraphs.

Dr. Longyear, speaking for Dr. Morgan, School of Music, stated that Dr. Morgan
interpreted this paragraph to be a redesignation of the role of the department
chairman and he raised the question of whether the interpretation