xt7w3r0pw563 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7w3r0pw563/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1983-11-14  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, November 14, 1983 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 14, 1983 1983 1983-11-14 2020 true xt7w3r0pw563 section xt7w3r0pw563 LNNVERSHY OF KENTUCKY



October 28, 1983

Members, University Senate
The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
November 14, 1983, at 3:00 p.m. in room 106, Classroom Building.




Chairman's Remarks.

Action EEEE: Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section 1.,

3.2.1, Review of Programs. (Circulated under date of
October 28, 1983.)


Item: Recommendation #6, Senate Research Committee report:
University computing services. Discussion will be pre—
faced with a report by Dr. Robert Heath, Director of
the University Computing Center. (Circulated under date
of 28 October, 1983.)

Action : Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section V.,
3.1.1, Repeat Option. (Circulated under date of Octo-
ber 26, 1983.)


Proposed changes in course processing, University Senate
Rules, Section III. (Circulated under date of October
27, 1983.)

Elbert W. Ockerman




The University Senate met in regu1ar session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, November 14,
1983, in Room 106 of the C1assroom Bui1ding.

E. Doug1as Rees, Chairman of the Senate Counci1, presided.

Members absent: Roger B. Anderson, James App1egate*, James Bader*, Michae1 Baer*,
Dennis K. Baird, Char1es E. Barnhart, Susan M. Be1more*, Jack C. BTanton, Thomas O.
B1ues*, James A. Bo1ing*, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Robert N. Bostrom, David Bradford*,
Joseph T. Burch, E11en Burnett*, Bever1y Carter, Karen Cobb, GTenn B. C011ins*, Jose
Concon, C1ifford J. Cremers*, M. Ward Crowe, Gary L. Cromwe11, Leo S. Demski*, Marcus
Di11on, Richard C. Domek*, Herbert Drennon, Nancy E. Dye, Anthony Eard1ey*, Wi11iam
Ecton*, Dona1d G. E1y*, Jackie Embry, Char1es H. Fay, Ray Forgue*, Richard W. Furst,
Art Ga11aher, Jr.*, Lester Go1dstein*, Char1es P. Graves*, C. Michae1 Gray, Andrew J.
Grimes*, Joseph Hamburg, S. Z. Hasan, Penny Heaton, Robert Hemenway*, Brad Hobbs,
Dona1d Hochstrasser, Raymond R. Hornback, A1fred S. L. Hu*, John J. Just, Theodore A.
Kotchen*, Gurcharan Laumas*, Robert Lawson, Juiie Lien*, Thomas Li11ich, Edgar
Maddox, Sa11y S. MattingTy*, Mike McCauTey, Marion McKenna*, H. Brinton Mi1ward*,
Jeff Moneypenny, Haron Na11y, Danie1 N. Ne1son*, Robert C. Nobe1, C1ayton Omvig*,
Mary Anne Owens*, Merri11 Packer, Janet Pisaneschi*, Jean Piva1*, David J. Prior*,
Peter Purdue*, Gera1d A. Rosentha1, Nimber1y Royster, Cary1 E. Rusbu1t*, Char1es
Sachate11o*, Edgar Sagan, Otis A. Sing1etary*, John T. Smith, Marcia Stanhope*,
Joseph V. Swintosky*, John Thompson, Kenneth Thompson, Marc J. Na11ace, Jesse Wei1,
Char1es Nethington, Scott Yocum

The Minutes of the Meeting of October 10, 1983, were approved as circuTated.
The Chairman made the fo11owing announcements:

”I shou1d 1ike to remind everyone that Professor Ma1co1m
Jewe11 wi11 give the Distinquished Professor Lecture next
Thursday, November 17 at 8:00 p.m. in the Center for the Arts.

There were handouts at the door. One is a 1ist
of the voting members of the senate which we wi11 use 1ater.
You shou1d a1so have a copy of the tab1e which Professor Fugate
used at the 1ast meeting. There is a1so a revised copy of
an agenda item which had been circu1ated on October 27, 1983.

The next meeting of the University Senate wi11 be Decem—
ber 5. This is in contrast to our norma1 poTicy to meet on
the second Monday of each month, but because December 12 wi11
be the beginning of exam week the Senate Counci1 fe1t we
shou1d meet the Monday before which wi11 be the 5th. There—
fore, we wi11 have another meeting fair1y soon.

I shou1d 1ike to remind you that you are invited, and I
wou1d a1so 1ike to invite a11 members of senate committees, to
the annua1 December Socia1 Affair with the Board of Trustees
on Tuesday, December 13. Spouses are invited.

*Absence exp1ained


 Most of you may know that last month the Council on
Higher Education held public hearings on three recommenda-
tions which came from a private consulting firm. These
recommendations, if they are adopted by the Council on
Higher Education, would affect critically our College of
Dentistry, and the graduate and undergraduate programs in
the College of Medicine. The Senate Council prepared in
early October a statement on those matters and these
statements were sent to individual members of the Council
on Higher Education and also to the Executive Director.
The Senate Council felt this probably did not need to be
on the agenda for discussion, but unless there is dis—
agreement, we will distribute a copy of those state—
ments along with the minutes of this meeting.

There is a related matter. In the same report the
consultants considered a possible merger of the two Medical
Centers, and alternatively a placing of the two universities
under a common governing board. The prospect of this
merger has been discussed at some length by the Herald .
Leader and the Courier Journal. It seems to me the merger
is a topic beyond idle speculation. My own surmises are
these: I would say that regardless of how 'merger' would
occur, the identity of the two basketball teams would remain.
I think that merger of the two Medical Centers would be
rather unlikely. Both Medical Centers are so intertwined
with the graduate and undergraduate programs of their
University that functionally it would not make much sense
to merge only the Medical Centers. Also, there is a more
compelling reason, if the Medical Centers were merged into
an independent system, another university would be intro—
duced into the State system vying for the same funds--a
situation not attractive to faculty or to the 'powers-that-
be.I Regardless, at some point the possibility of merger
is a matter we should look into from the point of view of
effect on academic programs. If you have any thoughts on
this, please communicate them to the Senate Council.

The votes have been counted for the election of new
members to the Senate Council. The term will begin the
first of January. The three members of the senate who
have been elected to the Senate Council by a majority vote
are Robert Altenkirch, Glenn Collins, and Donald Ivey.”

The first action item was presented by Professor Bradley Canon who was substi—
tuting for Professor Robert Bostrom. The Chair recognized Professor Canon. On
behalf of the Senate Council, Professor Canon recommended approval of the proposed
change in the University Senate Rules, Section I, 3.2.l, Review of Program [Graduate
Council]. This change was circulated to members of the senate under date of Octo—
ber 28, l983. Professor Canon added the rationale was so that it would be easier
to reinstate suspended graduate programs. It would give the University more flexi-
bility and autonomy in handling its graduate programs if a program could remain in
suspension for five rather than two years. There was a second to the motion.




The Chairman recognized Professor Malcolm Jewell who said the initiative came
from Dean Royster and the Graduate Council. In 1976 it was discovered there was no
procedure dealing with the suspension of or termination of graduate programs. At
that time a senate rule was passed. The only problem with the rule deals with the
temporary suspension of a program. Dean Royster and the Graduate Council felt two
years was too soon. Moreover, if terminated, the program could only be reinstated
by processing as a new program through the University and the Council on Higher
Education. A five—year maximum seemed much more reasonable than two.

There were no questions or discussion, and the proposal,which passed unanimously,
reads as follows:

Proposal (delete bracketed portion; new portion underlined)

I. 3.2. Review of Programs

The Graduate Council shall review graduate programs
and suggest measures designed to maintain acceptable
levels of academic quality. In pursuit of this .
charge, the Graduate Council may recommend appro—
priate actions to the Graduate Dean. For the purpose
of this section, such recommendations may include

(l) suspension of programs for a maximum of [two]

five years, (2) lifting of suspensions, and (3) ter-
mination of programs in accordance with the procedures
specified below.

All recommendations by the Graduate Council and deci-
sions by the Graduate Dean relative to suspension of
programs [or lifting of suspensions] shall be communi—
cated to the Chairman of the Senate Council. No

later than the [second] fifth year of any program
suspension, the Graduate Council shall review the
suspension and recommend to the Graduate Dean the
reinstatement or termination of the programs.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 remain the same.

New paragraph 5:

If the Graduate Dean approves a recommendation by
the Graduate Council to reinstate a program that has
been suspended, he shall submit this recommendation
to the Graduate Faculty for review. If the Graduate
Faculty concurs, it shall forward its recommendation
through the Senate Council to the University Senate

for approval.







The Chairman recognized Professor Bradley Canon. Professor Canon, on behalf of
the Senate Council, recommended approval of Recommendation #6 from the Research
Committee that would provide adequate computer services and make these accessible to
all research-oriented faculty. This recommendation was circulated to members of the
senate under date of October 28, I983. The motion was seconded.



Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Heath, Director of the Computing Center,
to give a report on the computing needs of the University.

Professor Heath remarked:

”That he would review what was happening to computing
facilities at the University but would limit his remarks
to those matters affecting academics (teaching and research).
His topics covered: l) Results of the l982-83 computer planning
effort, 2) implementation of the computer plan, 3) request for
special legislative appropriation for computing, 4) expansion
of instructional computing facilities, 5) the IBM 8083 system
software and applications, 6) IBM 3083 recharge rates, 7) the
library computer system, and 8) Voice/data communications

In developing the plan for computer facilities, an.estima-
tion of University—wide computer usage was made. Present use
and projected use was indicated on the attached charts [see A
and B].

A detailed statement of recommendations were presented.
Those recommendations follow:

l. Develop a stronger, more versatile central Computing
Center hierarchically networked with other minicomputers
and microcomputers in all three sectors to meet the in—
creasing needs of a growing number of more sophisticated
computer users.

Provide nonrecurring capital expenditures for‘computing in
the amount of $l9,3l5,200 over the next six years. Non-
recurring capital expenditures should be funded on a
recurring basis. Computing should be treated as a program
item within the University's budget.

Increase recurring expenditures for computing by an average
of $675,8l7 each year for the next six years.

Replace the current recharge system with a more flexible,
partial recharge system which will be used to assure a
fair distribution of limited computing resources and as

a management tool to determine the types and level of com-
puting resources required to meet future university com—
puting needs.

Establish a Computing Resources Advisory Committee to
advise the Director of University Computing on sector
computing resource needs and allocation of computing
resources among sectors, and when special, large re~
quests for computing services must be considered or when
priorities must be established among computing needs.

Increase the number of computer terminals available to
students, faculty, staff, and administrators.


 Provide adequate funding to the Computing Center so
that it may expand its computing resources and service

Develop a data communications network for the three
sectors of the University of Kentucky that will enable
faculty, students, staff, and administrators to have
easy access to state—of—the—art computing facilities.

Provide word processing and electronic mail capabilities
in all unit offices and provide required training for
all users.

Develop secure, integrated, centralized University data
bases within the Computing Center, with interactive
query and report—generating capabilities. Implement

a training program for faculty and staff on the use of
data bases and other computing facilities.

Automate the libraries of the three sectors of the
University of Kentucky.

Develop a comprehensive, tested plan for computing
catastrophe recovery.

Develop and use an evaluation process for determining
the cost effectiveness of computing resources.

Work with the state to ease restriétions imposed by
KRS 45.760 on the purchase of computing equipment.

The four areas of computing (instruction, research,
administrative and service) at the University are met by
the IBM 3083. Minicomputers are distributed among various
colleges. For the most part these systems are tied to—
gether in a network based on the existing telephone system.

Over the next five (5) years I envision an expan—
sion of the IBM 3083 main frame computer as well as a
growth of minicomputers in the colleges. The question
is how to obtain the money to purchase these resources.
One of the reasons for developing the computer plan was
that we wanted a plan in place so we would know how to
use any available funds given to us for computers. The
second reason was that we wanted a document to convince
central administration that we needed to devote more time,
effort and resources to computing. We wanted to point out
computing is important to the academic side of the Uni—
versity, and we do have strong support from the central
administration in the expansion of instructional facility.
We have money for additional terminals but because of
Senate Bill 44 restrictions, we cannot buy them until
April, l984.



Further in the past the University's central main frame
could only be used in a batch load. We are changing that
policy so that faculty and staff can use the 3083 in an
interactive mode. We are adding statistical analysis programs
to the 3083. If there are software packages which you need,
please let me know.

With respect to recharge, it is necessary for the
University to recharge and to have a recharge system in order
to collect computing money from grants. The recharge rates
will be lower as of January l, l984, and there is a prospect
later of lowering printing charges.

In conclusion, I would like to state that in terms
of voice/data communications planning we are trying to
develop a plan where we could implement a data communica—
tions network where in the future that will allow every—
one on campus to have easy access to all the computing

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Angelo wanted to
know if the discussions were taken up with the administration and if the policy was
technical, would these be desirable ends and would there be a separate budget? He
also wanted to know if anyone was voicing questions about the cost. Professor Heath
responded there had been a task force that looked at costs. He said recommendations
had been made, and he was willing for anyone to get involved with the policy ques—
tions. Professor Angelo said it was not just economics. He wanted some policy
questions asked and the consequences of such a budget. Professor Heath said that
simply in terms of the priority put on computing he would not make the decision.
Professor Angelo appreciated that and said that was why he asked the question and
felt there should be some articulate voice that acted as an ecological give and take.
Frankly, he was worried about it and said it had nothing to do with the goodwill and
good sense of the computer people. Professor Heath said each sector of the University
has a computer advisory committee composed of faculty, staff and administration. The
committees work together and recommend policies to the Chancellors. He said there were
a lot of people involved in computing policy.

Professor Peters pointed out that the chairmen of departments were given a
questionnaire a year ago so everyone had an opportunity for input. The Chairman said
at the end of this series of presentations based on the Research Committee's report,
there would be an opportunity to deal with these questions of resources and priorities.

The Chair recognized Professor Marcus McEllistrem for a presentation. Professor
McEllistrem made the following remarks:

”Our new IBM 3083 is already 65% saturated on average,
with peak saturation rising to about 80% in the middle of
the afternoon. The new operating system, to be developed
and installed over the next few months, will help but it's
clear that distributed computing facilities will have to
accommodate much of the increased computing which is about
to become necessary, or at least demanded. NE don't yet have
a coordinated way of addressing distributed cOmputing facili-
ties, or networking them in accordance with the University



Financing strategy is an unresolved matter. The
University Task Force had recommended doing away with the
"recharge" system, which charges units and individuals for
computing services beyond an allocated amount. But for
several important reasons that recommendation has not been
accepted. For example, an effective, easy to administer
alternative strategy or allocating Computing Resources has
not evolved. The new CPU hourly rate is $650.00 may
actually function as an effective increase to most users.
This is because under the old charges nearly everyone was
using the deferred rate of $525.00 instead of the regular
rate of $750.00. With elimination of the deferred rate,
the result is 24% higher now. This may also approxnnate
the increased computing services per CPU hour on the 3083
for many users, particularly those without large jobs.
Thus the new system may provide little relief for present
users of the Central Services, but will enable many new
users to join the system. Again, a new operating system
may improve turn—around time, and give the expected factor
of two in computing services per dollar roughly expected
(originally) of the new system.

As many mini— and miCro-computers spread throughout
campus, and as networked systems are distributed into
different regions of campuses, a maintenance and software
development strategy will be needed. The 'people' question
associated with making computing services widely available
has not been addressed, and may be a critical issue in a
few years. This people problem is the most serious one we
will have to address, if we intend to enlarge services sub—
stantially. ‘ .

High data rate communication systems are being addressed,
and solutions may not be far away, at least in principle. It
is not clear, though, what form a new, high speed communica—
tions system will take or when it will be available. But a
distributed, networked system would depend critically on an
inexpensive communications capability.

The size and types of data bases needed for research
use do not seem to be clear, nor the types of access needed.
But the information needed to address these points probably
already is present in our faculty, and data base issues in
general will be addressed soon. Thus this problem area is
not so serious—~at least the attempt to solve it can go for—

In spite of these unresolved problems and questions, it
is clear that the University is on a good course, with a
clear picture of what needs to be done to have effective,
up to date computer services available. The almost incredi—
bly smooth and trouble—free switch to the IBM 3038 last
summer shows the power and talent with which our Center
personnel function.


 We are indebted to a small, dedicated and very hard
working group of professionals at the Center. The princi—
ple question seems to me to be the speed with which we can
move to address the questions mentioned, and the mechanisms
we will use to address them. Neither the timing nor
mechanisms seem clear at this time for the first four questions.
All five of these problems have attendant costs, most of
which are accurately known.”

Professor Eakin wanted to know what discussion was given to a University mainte—
nance facility. He wondered how much money flowed through digital equipment mainte—
nance at the University. He wanted to know if any thought had been given for es—
tablishing University capability for maintaining small electronic equipment. Pro-
fessor Heath responded that a centralized electronic and communications repair
facility would be set up. The only problem was the space needed.

Chairman Rees thanked Dr. Heath and the Computing Committee for the report. He
said a year ago computing was a “burning issue" and thanks to the committee some of the
urgency now seemed gone.

There were no other questions and Recommendation #6 passed and reads as follows:

Recommendation #6 ‘
Provide adequate computer services and make these accessible
to all research—oriented faculty.


l. Within two years to enable 50% of the faculty to apply
computers to their research for activities other than
word processing, and to make up—to-date statistical
software packages available to all research faculty who
need them.

To provide facilities for the computer control of ex—
periments and data collection.

To provide research support through access to large data
bases, date archives, expert systems, and library

To provide text processing facilities to all faculty for
the evaluation of documents, and preparation of reports
and other documents.

To speed the implementation of the Computing Task Force
plan for research computing, including the development
of a powerful distributed network computing system inter—
connected to the University Computing Center facilities
via a fast and powerful communication system throughout
the University.

The Chairman recognized Professor Bradley Canon. Professor Canon, on behalf of


 the Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposal to amend University Senate
Rules, Section V., 3.1.1 Repeat Option. This proposal was circulated to members of
the University Senate under date of October 26, 1983. Chairman Rees said a student
who received a "B" would be given the right to repeat the course for a higher grade.
The motion was seconded.

There were no questions and the proposal, which passed unanimously, reads as


At its meeting on February 14, 1983, the University Senate
voted to amend the Repeat Option rule to require students
exercising the repeat option to notify in writing the dean
of the college in which the student is enrolled and the
student's advisor no later than the last day for dropping
the course without a grade. During discussion on that
issue, a Senator raised the question of amending the repeat
option rule to allow a student to repeat a course regardless
of the first grade earned in it. That question was returned
to the Senate Council for deliberation and subsequently
suhnutted to the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee
for consideration.

Proposal: (delete bracketed portion)
V., 3.1.1 Repeat Option (paragraph two)

A student shall have the option to repeat once as
many as three different courses which have been
completed [with a grade of C, D, or E] with only
the grade, credit hours and quality points for

the second completion used in computing the stu—
dent's academic standing and credit for graduation.
A student exercising the repeat option must notify
in writing .

Implementation Date: Spring, 1984

The Chairman said the last agenda item was probably the most thoroughly studied
proposal to come before the University Senate this year. The proposal called for a
Joint Council for Course Processing. Professor Al Winer was the Chairman of the
Committee from the beginning. Chairman Raes said the senate owed Professor Winer and
his committee a debt of gratitude for their diligence in working with the Undergraduate
Council, Graduate Council, Academic Council for the NEdical Center and others. A
revised version of the proposal, dated November 9, 1983, was circulated at the meeting.
There was no objection to using the revised version rather than the one circulated.

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Bradley Canon. Professor Canon, on behalf of
the Senate Council, recommended the proposed changes in course processing. The motion
was seconded.

The Chair asked Professor A1 Winer to present the reasons the committee was pro—
posing the changes. Chairman Rees said Vice Chancellor Sands would give his reasons
why the present system was better.



Professor Niner amplified on the change which occurred between the October 27
circulation and the revised version of the proposal on November 9. A suggestion was
made by the Graduate Council and the Academic Council of the Medical Center concerning
continuity of the JCCP so that there would be a staggered two—year term. (Initially,
two appointments from the three councils will be for two years, and two appointments
will be for one year.) The processing of minor course changes and procedures for
processing new programs and changes in program (including associated courses) will
remain unchanged. That is, the present Academic Council will still review new pro—
gram and program changes as well as courses associated with those programs. The
implementation date would be September rather than July. He pointed out the committee
was appointed four chairmen ago because of the faculty concerns. He said the JCCP
would create 40 to 60 percent free time for the Academic Councils. He stressed that
the representation of each of the academic councils would be four in number and hope—
fully would represent all four academic areas. He mentioned that the ad hoc committee
was very sincere and dedicated and gave recognition to the members. He said the commit—
tee felt this was an idea whose time had come.

The Chairman recognized Associate Vice Chancellor Sands. Dr. Sands gave arguments
against the proposal. He said, ”Perhaps this is an idea whose time has passed.“ He
wanted the senate to address the need for the proposal which was prompted by some per-
ceptions at least three years ago. This was at a time when the Undergraduate Council
was going through a period of transition and what happened then is not necessarily
what happens now. His second point was even if there was a need, he did not think this
was the proper way to address it. He felt the new council would be more cumbersome
and would probably introduce additional delays, and it would cost money because a new
staff member would be necessary to handle the work of the council. The real reason, he
felt, the Undergraduate Council was opposed to the proposal was based on program quality.
He urged the senate to reject the proposal and in its place he suggested that the ex-

isting Academic Councils be asked to review the entire curricula process from beginning
to end.

Professor Ivey said the assumption seemed to be that the new council would act
with less integrity in terms of quality of the present councils. He said there would
be four people from each council so he was not sure what the problem was. Dr. Sands
said he was not attacking the integrity of anyone, but the advantage of the academic
quality would come from the separation of course and program considerations. Chairman
Rees pointed out that the new council only consider course changes. New programs or
changes in programs would still go through the respective councils.

Student senator Taylor asked why there would be a representative from the Academic
Council of the Community Colleges. He did not think the senate had anything to do with
the academics of the Community Colleges. Professor Winer responded there was presently
a member from the Community College on the Undergraduate Council so that would be no

Professor Naldhart, a member of the Undergraduate Council, said the council felt
the proposal was beyond its time and the present structure allowed for real quality
education. To consider the courses as piecemeal changes was inappropriate. The council
felt the present structure was sufficient.

Professor Eakin was concerned about the addition of an extra level of bureaucracy
and felt the faculty should be spending their time teaching and doing research and
adding the new council was propogating bureaucracy in the academic structure. Chairman
Rees said presently there is duplication and, thus, inefficiency because at the present



time some courses go through several councils. Professor Wilson asked for a clarifi—
cation. Chairman Rees said the Senate Council's goal was to make one body responsible
for all course processing and that way only one group would have to be contacted. Pro-
fessor Niner said he was hearing terms such as layering and bureaucracy but felt it
would be marvelous to have one group of scholars who were representing all the academic
councils sitting together and seeing the whole thing at one time. He felt the quality
was there and the time involved would be shorter. Moreover, JCCP members would come
from the three Councils.

Professor Rea wanted to know if the new council would prevent the other councils
from considering a course and what if they disagreed. Professor Winer responded that
hopefully the four representatives would communicate with their council.

Professor Reedy, representing Dean Royster, said his remarks were those from Dean
Royster that he had expressed to the Senate Council and not the committee. He has
basically said, “Yes, we can live with it, if we must.” Professor Reedy Said Dean
Royster did not have a great concern on his part about the question of substantive changes
which come through individual courses: 'He said if the proposal passed, he hoped every—
one would be keenly attuned to the consideration of the effects on program quality
overall. Chairman Rees said one of the charges of the Graduate Council was the moni-
toring of programs. It seemed to him that one of the things the proposal should do
would be to give the Graduate Council more time for monitoring.

Professor Smith had been on both sides of the issue, and he felt there were pro—
blems that needed to be addressed but whether or not this particular mechanism was
appropriate, he was not sure. He felt the ad hoc committee should go back and document
the process and see how long it took for various courses to be approved.

Professor Massie saw a fatal problem in the proposal to separate programs or to
decide which was a program or a course. He said if the proposal were passed, there
would be a confusion in knowing where to call and felt there would be an increase in
inefficiency. He felt the proposal should be voted down no matter how long the commit—
tee had worked on it.

The previous question was moved, seconded and passed.

In a hand count, the proposed changes in course processing, University Senate
Rules, Section III, failed.

The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Elbert N. Ockerman
Secretary of the Senate


 Chart A

2. Increasing academic use of computers by all academic programs.

Community College System

Percentage of Students Using

Computers in Academic Programs
30 —

‘\ 8,385/30,132

»— 4,080/22,116


i ‘r i i i i
82/83 83/84 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88
Academic Year

Percentage of Students Using

. . Lexinoton Cam us
Computers In Academic Programs ‘ D

60E \11304/18500

40 ‘ ,

3O 7,995/19,500


l 1 i l L 1