xt7rjd4ppc25 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7rjd4ppc25/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1981-09-14  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, September 14, 1981 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, September 14, 1981 1981 1981-09-14 2020 true xt7rjd4ppc25 section xt7rjd4ppc25 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXENGTO‘Q KENTUCKY 40506

' COUNCIL
)», BUILDING

August 26, 1981

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
September 14 at 3:00 Pl\/I in room CB 102.
AGENDA:
University Senate Minutes.
Chairman's Remarks.
Remarks by President Singletary.
Resolutions.
Action Items:
a) Proposal for a repeat option and computation of grade-
point average for graduate students. (Circulated under
date of August 27, 1981.)
b) Resolution from the University Senate Research Committee,

Susan Belmore, Chairman. (Circulated under date of August

28,1981.)

Elbert W. Ockerman
Sec retary

Note: If you are unable to attend this meeting, please call Ms. Martha
Ferguson in the Registrar's Office (7-2958).

AN EQUAL OPF‘OR Nll’Y UNIVERSITY

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, SEPTEMBER T4, 1981

The University Senate met in reguTar session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, September T4,
T98T, in Room T02 of the CTassroom Budeing.

James Kemp, presiding

Members absent: M. I. H. ATeem*, ATbert S. Bacdayan, CharTes E. Barnhart, James C.
BeidTeman, NiTTiam H. BTackburn*, Jack C. BTanton, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Robert N.
Bostrom*, Britt Brockman, Joseph T. Burch, Harry M. CaudiTT, DonaTd B. CTapp, D. Kay
CTawson*, Georgia CoTTins, GTenn B. CoTTins*, John ConkTin*, J. DonaTd Coonrod*, Gary L.
CromweTT, Guy M. Davenport*, David E. Denton*, Joseph Dougherty, Herbert N. Drennon,
Anthony EardTey, James N. Freeman*, Winur w. Frye*, Joseph Fugate*, Richard w. Furst,
Art GaTTaher, Jr., Dean Garritson, John H. Garvey, Robert D. Guthrie, Joseph Hamburg,
Debbie HerteTendy, Andrew J. Hiatt*, Raymond R. Hornback, CharTes HuTtman*, LesTie Huff,
MichaeT Impey, Keith H. Johnson*, John J. Just, David T. Kao, MichaeT J. Kirckhorn,
Theodore A. Kotchen, Shea Lair*, James R. Lang*, Stephen Langston, GwendoTen Lee*, Tim
Mann, Kenneth E. Marino*, James R. Marsden, SaTTy S. MattingTy*, Marion E. McKenna*,
Ernest MiddTeton*, George E. MitcheTT, Jr.*, John M. MitcheTT*, PameTa NickTess, Robert
C. NobTe*, P. J. O'Connor, James R. OgTetree*, Bernard Orr, CTayton R. PauT*, ATan R.
Perreiah, David J. Prior*, Herbert G. Reid, Gregory Richardson, Jon M. Shepard*, D.
MiTton Shuffett*, Harry A. Smith, John T. Smith, Mary Beth Speaks, Peggy Spencer, EarT
L. SteeTe, HiTTiam Stober*, Mark Suter, Joseph V. Swintosky*, John Thompson, Haron H.
Traurig, S. Sidney UTmer*, David Webster, James H. NeTTs, CharTes Wethington, Howard
BTaine Wood*, Nadine Wright*, MadeTeine Yeh

The minutes of the meeting of ApriT T3, T98T, were approved as circuTated.
Chairman Kemp made the foTTowing remarks:

“Good afternoon Tadies and gentTemen. NeTcome to the first meeting
of the T98T-82 University Senate. I am Jim Kemp, Chirman of the Senate
CounciT, and by virtue of that office presiding officer of the Senate for
this year. I had a Tong inauguraT speech ready to give but in view
of the fact that our President is avaiTabTe today and is going to give
us some remarks on what is right and maybe otherwise about the University,
I am going to forego this Tong and inauguraT speech and present to you
our President, Dr. Otis SingTetary.”

President SingTetary spoke to the_Senate as foTTows:

“Good afternoon members of the Senate. I wish to weTcome you back
for yet another academic year at the University, and to touch upon a
few items of interest.

First, I woqu Tike to comment upon enroTTment patterns. It is
hard to say yet what the finaT accurate head count wiTT be, but we can
say it wiTT be a stabTe year for us as compared with Tast year. I
woqu guess that when the finaT officiaT figures are reTeased, we wiTT
have a sTight decrease. It is not uniform, however, nor does it make
any particuTar sense when you Took at undergraduate enroTTments where
we might have a sTight increase. Arts and Sciences is up; Business
and Economics is down. (Business and Economics, as you know, has
instituted a new seTective admissions program.) Communications is up,
continuing the trend we have seen for many years now. Engineering is

‘s
}

*Absence expTained

 

 up despite its restricted admissions policy. Basically, there is

a shift inside the Institution rather than a fundamental change

in the number of students. At the graduate level there is a slight
increase. The professional programs are predictably stable.

As many of you know, there is a debate in the State about
selective admissions. We will get into that debate this year, and
we will hear and say a good deal about it. The point is that
eleven of our seventeen colleges already have some form of modified
selective admissions, a fact that goes unnoticed when people talk
about the impact of selective admissions on campus.

One might speculate about some of the forces at play, in terms
of selective admissions not only here but all over the State and
country. Clearly the impact of inflation, the increase in tuition,
the impending cuts in financial aid available to students, and some
loss of appeal in the academic market place have influenced enroll-
ments. Any of these factors could change, and change substantially
the future enrollment patterns of this institution. I would guess,
speculating for a moment, that we will in this academic year be
addressing the question: is this Institution going to move to a
selective admissions program and, if so, to what specific kind of
program?

I would also like to review very briefly certain changes in
the administrative area. You know that Lewis Cochran has retired and
Art Gallaher is now serving as Vice President for Academic Affairs.
Charles Wethington has replaced Stanley Wall as the Vice President
for the Community College System. Mike Baer from the Department of
Political Science was appointed Dean of Arts and Sciences. The new
Dean for the College of Business and Economics, Dr. Richard Furst,
is on board and we are glad to welcome him.

I also call to your attention certain physical developments on
campus. The building program at all universities has slackened
(not exactly stopped). We still have a few developments under way
on this campus. Certainly the Ambulatory Care Facility at Univer—
sity Hospital, one project that finally received approval, is one
of those projects. Construction is finally under way for that much
needed facility. You will also notice the addition to the Student
Center is under way. That is not being funded out of State appro-
priated funds, but from pledged students‘ fees. The present Student
Center was built for a student body about half the size of the one
we have now. The addition was long overdue. We will also be moving
ahead with the renovation of the Mining Engineering Lab. As you
know, we revived the Mining Engineering option; it is a program that
has very direct importance to the State because of its natural re-
sources. We have incredibly limited facilities and equipment. We
hope to begin construction on Rose Street, in the course of this
year, a building for the Development Office. It was given to us by
the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Mr. William B. Sturgill.

This is the year of the Southern Association Self-Study Accredita-
tion visit. Last year a lot of the spade work was done, and many
of you contributed to those preparations. 1 think we are in reason—
ably good shape. I think we are going to have a very good report,

 

 and I want to thank Paul Sears, once again, and the members of his
staff who have done a superb job. Not many people understand the
time and effort that go into this exercise.

Just as school opened we announced the R. J. Reynolds million
dollar gift to the College of Agriculture for tobacco research.
Given the other physical and financial news of the University, this
is very good news, indeed. For the second year in a row we have
opened with a million dollar gift. We would like to establish that
as a tradition!

We hope to announce at tomorrow’s meeting of the Board of
Trustees that we will have our first visiting professor here this
year under the funds made available to us by the Ashland Oil Com-
pany. You remember last year they gave us a million dollar gift
which was specifically aimed at the College of Business and Eco—
nomics. It focused on that College. They also made a supplementary
gift to enable us to bring visiting faculty to the campus. The
first is going to be Tom Wicker, Columnist 0f the New York Times.

He was here, as I recall, last year. Mr. Wicker is going to come

at three separate times during this academic year. On each visit he
is going to meet with and deal with an entirely different group of
students.

Those are the bits and pieces on what is happening around the
campus. I would indeed be remiss if I pretended those were the
really important things that face us as we go into the new year. I
must review with you briefly the bad news—~the budget concerns and
the fiscal outlook for this University. This is the most serious
problem facing the University. The level of financial support for
this Institution, and others like it, continues to be of primary
importance. I need not go back over all the ground about the State‘s
under—realization of revenue; you are aware of that. It is a real
problem, one that affects the whole State, not just higher education
and not just the University of Kentucky. It is true that we are in
an extremely difficult time and I want to focus on the dimensions
of the problem. I am not sure that everyone inside this community
understands exactly how this has worked. What I would have you
understand is that we came through, in the last fifteen months, a
series of cuts. There have been three. One took place in June a
year ago, one at the time when the new budget went into effect, and
a third one after many of you left here last spring-—an 8.8
million dollar cut which is the most recent of the three. The
thing I want you to understand is that over that period of time, UK
has suffered a cumulative loss of about 23 million dollars. That
is a lot of money and is bound to have an impact. You can play all
the percentage games you want and slice it anyway you like, turn it
to the light anyway you wish, and it still comes out as being very
bad. Most of you have or will be experiencing the freeze on posi—
tions. You must understand that in any serious or informal dis—
cussion of the budget problem of this University one must realize
that about 80% of our budget is in people. When they take away a
substantial number of dollars they are taking away people. I am
sure all of you have felt the squeeze on current operating expenses,
maintenance repairs, equipment, telephone, and travel. You are
aware of the deferral of needed equipment replacement. We have
eliminated new debt service in the budget and have postponed a

 

 -4-

number of projects even though we felt they were desperately
needed. We have deferred our schedule of maintenance for exist-
ing facilities. All these things you undoubtedly know. What you
may not be aware of, and what I want you to understand, is that
the last budget cut, the 8.8 million dollar cut, has not yet been
absorbed in the Institution. We have handled it for one year
only. We have taken every dollar that we can put our hands on

for nonrecurring purposes in order to deal with it for the year.
By June 30 of this year, these temporary actions must be con—
verted to permanent reductions. What that means is that the

most difficult task in front of us on this campus is how we are
going to absorb that 8.8 million dollar cut into this University's
budget. I have already heard about the different ways you can
approach this problem; there are many. I think there is a very
easy philosophy which says that instead of lowering the overall
quality of the Institution we ought to “lop off'I things at the
end: do less, in effect, but do that reasonably well. That is

a very persuasive argument and one that can be easily championed.
I find it to be espoused, however, by people who appear reasonably
sure that they are not going to be ”Topped off.“ The other choice
is to do what we have been doing and that is to stretch what we can,
preserve what we can, and distribute across the board, which
doesn't please anybody. There is a large procedural question here:
how are we going to do this? Our flexibility is pretty much gone;
we have used it up in dealing with the first two cuts and this one
is going to be a lot tougher. I will, within the next several
weeks, be appointing an ad hoc committee and will ask some of you
to serve on it, to advise me on these larger strategic matters.
There is no painless way for us to address the very substantial
economic problem. The only bright spot is that thus far we have
not had to terminate anyone other than through the routine opera—
tions of the University. We have kept salaries intact. From the
beginning, we have said that the salary problem of both the staff
and faculty was the most severe problem of the Institution. We
still believe that to be true. We also think the dollars that
were allocated for that purpose put us in a more favorable competi—
tive position than we were. The difficulty is that in making the
decision not to touch salary dollars meant that we had a very
heavy impact in other areas. We make no apology for that; we felt
it was the proper thing to do. I would hope that this body would
agree with me that the strength of the Institution derives from
the strength of the faculty.

What we have at the University of Kentucky is a resource
problem, and that problem will not be solved by management studies
alone. Nor is it possible to sustain these cutbacks without harm-
ful effects on the Institution. Our budgets can be cut as long as
we have any money; that's a mathematical philosophy. They can cut
the budgets, but what they cannot do is to contend that when you
cut the budget in an already underfinanced institution that you do
so without hurting the institution. What you are really talking
about is the erosion of what exists in the way of quality of an
institution. I have made this statement to you before and will
make it again. No institution in Kentucky that I know of, including
this one, can very well afford that.

 

 I could use another session like this one today to talk to you
about what I perceive as the forces at play in Kentucky today that
have to do with higher education. There are probably more projects
under way and with less detectable or discernible direction and
coordination than at any time I can remember. Many of them are po—
tentially important to all of higher education and some to this
State. We have a Management Study underway, as you know; consul-
tants are now at work in the State. We have a mission implementation
study. We have what is in my opinion the first significant attempt
to deal with a broad range of questions on higher education being
dealt with by the Prichard Committee. Regardless of how you feel
about any individual piece of it, I think on the whole it has been
a very worthwhile undertaking. They will soon make a report to the
Council on Higher Education and then we will have our say about it.

I have tried to give you a very brief look at what I think our
situation is at the beginning of the new year. I can summarize by
saying that we are alive; there is a great deal going on, and it
is a difficult time. The difficulty stems primarily from the dollar
problem. I suspect and hope that this group will join me in the
feeling that whatever our differences on individual points, we basi—
cally agree on one thing: we want, and I think most Kentuckians want,
a State University that does indeed stand among the outstanding
educational institutions in our country. We have no choice for the
time being but to “circle the wagons,” to make do somehow, and to look
toward better days. Hopefully, the conditions which have caused the
revenue problem in Kentucky are not fixed, and we will soon resume
what has been a promising period of progress.”

Dr. Singletary was given a hand of applause.

Chairman Kemp thanked the President for his remarks. He said that he appreciated
the opportunity of serving as Chairman for the l98l—82 academic year and trusted that
the year would be mutually beneficial. He introduced the members of the Senate Council:
Donald Ivey, Secretary; William Wagner; Paul Sears; Glenn Collins; Douglas Rees; Constance
Wilson; Harry Caudill; Alfred Winer and George Schwert. They will be meeting at 8:00
on Tuesday mornings. The student members are Vincent Yeh, Mark Vonderheide, and Britt
Brockman, President of the Student Association. The Chairman also introduced the
Sergeants—at-arms, James Alcorn and David Stockham; Recording Secretary, Martha Ferguson;
Celinda Todd, Senate Council Office, and George Gaddie, Official Secretary, Acting Dean of
Admissions and Registrar for Dr. Ockerman, who is on leave. The new members of the
Senate were asked to stand.

The Chairman said that next month an agenda item would be the Reorganization of the
Senate Proposal.

The first action item was a resolution on the former Chairman, George Schwert, pre—
sented by William Wagner.

“In spite of offering multifarious reasons for not assuming the
Chairmanship of the University Senate, the Professor George Schwert
was finally coerced into accepting the position. He promptly per-
suaded the Council and Senate to change the term of office to assure
that his term would not extend beyond one year. However, George's
reluctance did not prevent his dedication to the responsibilities of
the office; he efficiently and effectively conducted the business of
the Council and Senate. One of the more important issues during his
term was consideration of the reorganization of the Senate, which per-
haps fortunately from his point of view was postponed for final action

 

 to this year. The members of the Senate wish to express our apprecia-
tion for his service as chairman of the Senate for the l980—8l academic
year.

Dr. Schwert was given a hand of applause.

Chairman Kemp recognized Professor Donald Ivey, Secretary of the Senate Council,
who presented a motion to adopt the proposal for a repeat option and computation of
grade-point average for graduate students. This proposal had been circulated to mem-
bers of the University Senate under the date of August 27, l98l. The proposal will be
forwarded to the Rules Committee for codification.

There was no debate. The proposal passed unanimously and reads as follows:

Background:

On the recommendation of the Graduate Faculty and after consideration
by the Comnittee on Admissions and Academic Standards, the Senate
Council submits to the Senate the following additions to the Rules of
the Senate:

l) "With the approval of the Graduate Dean, a student may repeat
a graduate course and count only the second grade as part of
the graduate grade—point average. This action will be initiated
by petition of the Director of Graduate Studies and may be done
only once in a particular degree program or in post—baccalau—
reate status.”

”If a graduate student changes programs, the graduate grade—
point average of that student will be determined only on
previously completed graduate work accepted by the new pro-
gram and graduate work attempted after acceptance into the
program. When a student moves from post-baccalaureate sta-
tus into a program, the graduate grade-point average in—
cludes only those hours transferred from the post—baccalau-
reate status to the program and those subsequently attempted
for the program. When the repeat option has been exercised,
only the second grade is to be considered in the grade-point
average.“

Rationale:
The Graduate School requires an overall 3.0 grade—point average

on all work carrying graduate credit. These changes permit a
student to recover from one calamitous event in a degree program.

Implementation Date: Fall Semester, l98l

The Chairman recognized Professor Donald Ivey for a motion from the Senate CounciL
Professor Ivey said that approving the motion would simply be going on record supporting
the Resolution from the University Senate Research Committee which Susan Belmore chaired.
Professor Ivey, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended support of the
Resolution.

There was no discussion, and the Senate voted unanimously to support the Resolu—
tion which reads as follows:

 

 Background:

This resolution deals with federal reporting requirements for
academic personnel which are outlined in Office of Management
and Budget Circular A—2l entitled “Cost Principles for Educa-
tional Institutions.“ Circular A—Zl describes a monitored work—
load system which involves“ . .accounting for lOO percent of

the work for which each employee is compensated and which is
required in fulfillment of the employee's obligations to the
University.” This provision thus requires that educational
institutions receiving federal funds provide percent—of—effort
reports for the activities of individual faculty members. Al—
though percentage estimates have been used by the University

of Kentucky for some time their systematic use by the federal
government is a more serious matter. The University of Kentucky
is currently readying a workload monitoring system to meet

these federal guidelines. This system, which will be a slightly
elaborated version of the present percentage allocation estimates,
will be implemented this year.

The guidelines described in Circular A-2l have attracted a variety
of negative reactions from the academic community. The resolution
below was passed by the National Academy of Sciences on April 22,
l980, and has subsequently been endorsed by the Academic Senates
of a number of major universities, including Connecticut, Hawaii,
Kansas, Rutgers, Texas, Utah, and Yale. There are two major
concerns: l) These guidelines assume that there are clearly
specified time requirements for the scholarly activities of
academic personnel. 2) The guidelines are not limited to
accounting for portions of salary directly supported by the
government, but cover all university activities including
sponsored research, non—sponsored research, teaching, and
departmental administration.

Resolution:
The University Senate of the University of Kentucky endorses the
following statement by the National Academy of Sciences:

While supporting the principle of accountability for
usage of public funds, NAS views with concern the
proposed implementation of OMB Revised Circular A—Zl,
effective July l, l980. Application of these new regu-
lations to institutions of higher learning would
further constrain the already limited flexibility in
research thrust, increase the administrative burden,
reduce morale among teaching and research personnel,
and provide a cumbersome, meaningless documentation
in terms of percent—of—effort for a continuum of
scholarly activities. Moreover, because these regu-
lations would monitor non—federally supported aca—
demic functions as well, inappropriate controls might
be exercised. We therefore urge reconsideration of
regulations embodied in A—2l, and in particular,
abandonment of percent—of—effort accounting for aca—
demic staff.

There were no further items of business, and the meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.

Martha M. Ferguson
Recording Secretary

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

:ATE COUNCIL

A'TIONBUILDING 5M l‘?‘
[Afist 27,1981

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council

AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday
September 14, 1981. Proposal for a repeat option and
computation of grade-point average for graduate students.

Background:

On the recommendation of the Graduate Faculty and after consideration by
the Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards, the Senate Council
submits to the Senate the following additions to the Rules of the Senate:

1) "With the approval of the Graduate Dean, a student may repeat
a graduate course and count only the second grade as part of the
graduate grade-point average. This action will be initiated by
petition of the Director of Graduate Studies and may be done only
once in a particular degree program or in post—baccalaureate status. ”

"If a graduate student changes programs, the graduate grade-point
average of that student will be determined only on previously com-
pleted graduate work accepted by the new program and graduate

work attempted after acceptance into the program. When a student
moves from post-baccalaureate status into a program, the graduate
grade-point average includes only those hours transferred from the
post—baccalaureate status to the program and those subsequently at-
tempted for the program. When the repeat option has been exercised,
only the second grade is to be considered in the grade-point average. "

, Rationale:
The Graduate School requires an overall 3. O grade-point average on all work
\‘I carrying graduate credit. These changes permit a student to recover from

I

kone calamitous event in a degree program.

jNOTE: If approved, the proposal will be forwarded to the Rules Committee
I for codification.

Implementation Date: Fall Semester, 1981

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

umvznsu,‘ Y 55‘ TE COUNCIL

IO AD ISTRA ON BUILDING
“Q, ' August 28, 1981

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council
AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday,

September 14, 1981. Resolution from University Senate
Research Committee, Susan Belmore, Chairman.

 

 

Background:

This resolution deals with federal reporting requirements for academic
personnel which are outlined in Office of Management and Budget Circu-
lar A-Zl entitled ”Cost Principles for Educational Institutions. " Circu—
lar A—Zl describes a monitored workload system which involves " . . .
accounting for 100 percent of the work for which each employee is com-
pensated and which is required in fulfillment of the employee's obliga-
tions to the university. ” This provision thus requires that educational
institutions receiving federal funds provide percent—of-effort reports
for the activities of individual faculty members. Although percentage
estimates have been used by the University of Kentucky for some time
their systematic use by the federal government is a more serious mat-
ter. The University of Kentucky is currently readying a workload
monitoring system to meet these federal guidelines. This system, which
will be a slightly elaborated version of the present percentage allocation
estimates, will be implemented this year.

The guidelines described in Circular A-Zl have attracted a variety of
negative reactions from the academic community. The resolution be-
low was passed by the National Academy of Sciences on April 22, 1980,
and has subsequently been endorsed by the Academic Senates of a number
of major universities, including Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Rutgers,
Texas, Utah, and Yale. There are two major concerns: 1) These guide-
lines assume that there are clearly specified time requirements for the
scholarly activities of academic personnel. 2) The guidelines are not
limited to accounting for portions of salary directly supported by the
government, but cover all university activities including sponsored re-
search, non—sponsored research, teaching, and departmental administra-
tion.

[continued]

AN EQUAL OPPOR'UNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 Page 2
University Senate Agenda Item: Research Committee Resolution

yigus‘f 28, 198]

Resolution:
The University Senate of the University of Kentucky endorses the following
statement by the National Academy of Sciences:

While supporting the principle of accountability for usage
of public funds, NAS views with concern the proposed im-
plementation of OMB Revised Circular A-Zl, effective
July 1, 1980. Application of these new regulations to insti-
tutions of higher learning would further constrain the al—
ready limited flexibility in research thrust, increase the
administrative burden, reduce morale among teaching and
research personnel, and provide a cumbersome, meaning-
less documentation in terms of percent—of—effort for a
continuum of scholarly activities. Moreover, because
these regulations would monitor non-federally supported
academic functions as well, inappropriate controls might
be exercised. We therefore urge reconsideration of regu—
lations embodied in A—21, and in particular, abandonment
of percent—of-effort accounting for academic staff.

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

If

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
KASTLE HALL

March 6, 1981

Dr. George W. Schwert
Chair, University Senate
10 Administration Building
CAMPUS 00320

Dear Dr. Schwert:

The Research Committee requests that the attached resolution be
placed on the agenda for the April‘meeting of the University Sentate.
If I may provide any further information about this resolution, please
feel free to contact me at 258—2033.

Yours truly,

7 a ‘
/ lfn I)?" 'N' r ’
31,5 1—4;;11’\, r I ‘_ . ‘ ”(\f’f x_>\\

Susan M. Belmore, Ph.D.
Chair, Senate Research Committee

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 a no ‘A'
RESOLUTI :

The n ersity Senate of the University of Kentucky endorSes

theifo‘ Owing statement by the National Academy of Sciences:
,4 '

fi,§hile supporting the principle of accountability for
usage of public funds, NAS views with concern the
proposed implementation of OMB Revised Circular A-Zl,
effective July 1, 1980. Application of these new
regulations to institutions of higher learning would
further constrain the already limited flexibility
in research thrust, increase the administrative burden,
reduce morale among teaching and research personnel,
and provide a cumbersome, meaningless documentation
in terms of percent-of-effort for a continuum of
scholarly activities. Moreover, because these regu-
lations would monitor non—federally supported academic
functions as well, inappropriate controls might be
exercised. We therefore urge reconsideration of
regulations embodied in A-21, and in particular,
abandonment of percent-of—effort accounting for
academic staff.

BACKGROUND:

This resolution deals with federal reporting requirements for
academic personnel which are outlined in Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-Zl entitled ”Cost Principles for Educational
Institutions." Circular A-Zl describes a monitored workload
system which involves "...accounting for 100 percent of the work
for which each employee is compensated and which is required in
fulfillment of the employee's obligations to the university."
This provision thus requires that educational institutions receiv-
ing federal funds provide percent—of-effort reports for the activ-
ities of individual faculty members. Although percentage esti-
mates have been used by the University of Kentucky for some time,
their systematic use by the federal government is a more serious
matter. The University of Kentucky is currently readying a work-
load monitoring system to meet these federal guidelines. This
system, which will be a slightly elaborated version of the present
percentage allocation estimates, will be implemented next year.

_ The guidelines described in Circular A-Zl have attracted a
va-iety of negative reactions from the academic community. The
above resolution was passed by the National Academy of Sciences on
April 22, 1980, and has subsequently been endorsed by the Academic
Senates of a number of major universities, including Connecticut,
Hawaii, Kansas, Rutgers, Texas, Utah, and Yale. There are two
major concerns: 1) TheSe guidelines assume that there are clearly
specified time requirements for the scholarly activities of
academic personnel. 2) The guidelines are not limited to account—
ing for portions 0f salary directl