xt7wdb7vqt5d https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wdb7vqt5d/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1979-04-09  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 9, 1979 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 9, 1979 1979 1979-04-09 2020 true xt7wdb7vqt5d section xt7wdb7vqt5d MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL 9, 1979

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, April 9, 1979,
in Room 106 of the Classroom Building.

Joseph A. Bryant, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Michael A. Baer, Charles E. Barnhart, R. Paul Baumgartner*, Joanne
Bell, Janis L. Bellack*, Mark Birkebak*, Brack A. Bivins, A. Edward Blackhurst*, Jack C.
Blanton, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Judy Brown, Joseph T. Burch, S. K. Chan, Donald B. Clapp,
Kenneth M. Coleman, Clinton Collins*, Glenn B. Collins, Ronda S. Connaway, John Crosby,
Paul Davis, John A. Deacon, Patrick P. DeLuca*, George W. Denemark*, David E. Denton*,
Ronald C. Dillehay, Joseph M. Dougherty, Louis Diamond, Anthony Eardley, Bruce S.
Eastwood, Jane Emanuel*, Buzz English, Edward G. Foree, Wilbur W. Frye*, James E. Funk*,
Art Gallaher, Joseph H. Gardner, John H. Garvey, Abner Golden*, Merlin Hackbart*

Joseph Hamburg, Virgil W. Hays*, Raymond R. Hornback, David Hurst*, H. Douglas Jameson,
Dean Jaros, Margaret W. Jones*, Wesley H. Jones, Edward J. Kifer, Aimo J. Kiviniemi*,
James A. Knoblett, Jane Kotchen*, Gretchen LaGodna*, Stephen Langston, Thomas P. Lewis*,
Arthur Lieber, John Lihani, Paul Mandelstam*, William L. Matthews, Tony McAdams*, Betty
W. McClaskey, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Susan A. McEvoy*, Lora McGuire, Dorothy A. Miller*,
Phillip W. Miller, William G. Moody*, Catherine Morsink, Sid Neal*, Philip J. Noffsinger,
Elbert W. 0ckerman*, Merrill W. Packer, Leonard V. Packett*, Bobby C. Pass, Doyle E.
Peaslee*, David Peck*, Jean Pival, Deborah E. Powe11*, Walter Precourt, David H.
Richardson, Ramona Rush*, Pritam S. Sabharwal, Stanley R. Saxe, Mike Schutte, Otis A.
Singletary*, John T. Smith, Tim Smith*, Terry Squires, Marjorie S. Stewart, Louis J.
Swift, Leonard Tipton, Lee T. Todd, M. Stanley Wall, Mike Whitlock*, H. David Wilson,
Fred W. Zechman*,

The minutes of the meeting of March 12, 1979, were approved as circulated.

The Chairman made the following announcements. The first item concerned the retire-
ment policy which has been reported by the press. The policy as announced is that persons
who are scheduled to retire this year under the retirement rule in force have been given
a one-year extension. The President made this a one—year action and no more. It is his
hope that well before this time next year we will have a basis for a continuing policy
about retirement.

The Chairman called the Senators' attention to the fact that it was imperative to
schedule a meeting on April 30. He said he realized it was an imposition, but the Senate
Council felt it was better to have the meeting April 30 rather than May 7 during examina—
tions and particularly difficult after that. He added that there would be a full agenda
at that time. One item will be a report from the Ombudsman's Office. The meeting will
be April 30 at 3:00 p.m. in Room 118 of the Classroom Building.

The Chairman urged the Senators to attend Commencement Exercises on May 12 at
4:00 p.m. He said that Professor Reedy, University Marshal, would be sending out a
letter. The Chairman suggested that the Senators should be reserving their hoods.

The Chairman said that there was to be a special report from Dean Ronda Connaway
about a project that has been taking place off—campus that was of considerable interest
to the Senate. She had a prepared statement which was read by Professor Zafar Hasan
from Dean Connaway's Department.

7"Absence explained


 The statement follows:


I. Introduction

I am pleased to respond to Chairman Bryant's request to comment
briefly on the design of off—campus instruction in the College
of Social Professions. I will provide a short description of
a program of off—campus instruction we have completed and
comment on how the program was planned, monitored, and evalu—
ated. If you have questions, either I or the senators from
our College will attempt to clarify any points that may be of
interest to you.

Program description

In the fall l975, representatives from a number of social
agencies and social service programs in eastern Kentucky re-
quested that we consider offering our Master of Social Work
degree program in Hazard to meet the needs of a large number
of employees who were not free to move to the Lexington campus
for such study.

Following the faculty's discussion of this request and
their vote to establish the program, we engaged in several
months of planning, recruiting applicants, and coordination
with the Kentucky Bureau for Social Services which provided a
major source of grant support for the program.

The program began in the fall 1976 and was completed at the
end of the summer session, 1978. We received forty—six appli—
cations; thirty—six applications were approved, and thirty—
three students enrolled. Five of these thirty—three dropped
out at some point during the first year——either because they
found they could not combine work and study or because of
deficiencies in academic performance. One additional student
who moved into the Hindman area with one year of graduate
study in an accredited program in Florida was admitted to the
second year of study. Of the twenty—nine students who completed
the program of instruction, twenty-six have been awarded the
degree; the three remaining students have an incomplete grade
and do not qualify for the final comprehensive examination.

With the exception of offering the program over six semes—
ters rather than the four semesters on campus, the program was
the same as our on—campus program. The same standards were
used for admission to the Graduate School and to our College;
we used our regular faculty as instructors except for two
additional, temporary faculty hired to teach the practicum
course in eastern Kentucky; the course sequence was the same;
similar texts and course materials were used following the
standard course syllabi.


 The majority of students were employees of the Kentucky
Bureau for Social Services and located in Hazard, Jackson,
London, Williamsburg, Booneville, Beattyville, and Hyden.

Program planning, coordination, monitoring, and evaluation

One of the most frequently raised questions/issues about
off—campus instruction is how to maintain quality. Obviously,
you cannot do it if you simply offer a series of courses on an
ad hoc basis using part-time instructors who have little knowl—
edge of or identification with the program. Furthermore, it
must be designed in such a way as to meet all similar standards
and basic requirements as on—campus instruction. Beyond that,
however, additional steps must be taken and structures devel—
oped for adequate planning, coordination, monitoring, and
evaluation. We set aside several months' planning time in
which we tried to anticipate as many problems and difficulties
as possible and plan for how they would be handled if they
arose. This phase included, for example, working with the
Commissioner of the Bureau for Social Services and his staff
about program support, the procedures by which the Bureau
would pay its employees' tuition, and how its employees would
participate in practicum instruction.

One faculty member, Professor Joanne Bell, served as program

coordinator. The tasks included the responsibility to serve

as student advisor for all students in the program; liaison

with University Extension, with the Graduate School admissions
officer, with Hazard Community College staff for use of these
facilities, and with the state agency; and identification of
program needs and potential resources to meet them. The task

of coordination turned out to be a time—consuming and difficult
one which Professor Bell handled with great interest and care.

In addition to the coordinator's responsibility to monitor
the program's progress, the curriculum subcommittee was es—
tablished to assist in this process. When either students or
faculty identified issues or problems within the program,
these not only were brought to my attention but also were con—
sidered by this committee.

A final evaluation was conducted by the curriculum com—
mittee using a process of committee hearings to which all
interested faculty and students were invited to share their
observations and make recommendations about future off—campus
programs. A number of well considered and thoughtful recom—
mendations developed from this process which subsequently
were adopted by the faculty and have guided our planning for
the off—campus masters degree program which will begin at
Northern Kentucky University in June, 1979. For example:

1) We now require a personal interview of all applicants
to the program for the purpose of clarifying the
special demands of graduate study while fully employed.


 We have planned for more systematic means of socializa—
tion of students into the College and into the pro—

We have developed additional library resources.

We have expanded the planning time prior to the begin—
ning of the program.

We have designed a more flexible arrangement for the
practicum portion of instruction (which we also are
planning for on—campus students).

Off—campus instruction is difficult to plan and deliver;
however, it appears to be the only way to provide needed in-
struction to certain groups in Kentucky. We have found it to
also be immensely rewarding. It can be a significant contribu—
tion to maintaining a positive image of the University in the

The Chairman thanked Professor Hasan for reading the statement.

The Chairman recognized Professor Daniel Reedy for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of the
proposed revision in the University Senate Rules, Section V, 1.8.1, ”Withdrawal Policy.”
This proposal had been circulated to members of the University Senate under the date of
March 22, 1979. The Chairman said that the Senate Council had attempted to incorporate
the sentiments of the majority at the last meeting. The floor was opened for questions
and discussion.


A Student Senator said that he strongly questioned the proposed change in number
three and wanted to go on record as being in favor of if a student were going to drop
after the half of a course for non—academic reasons, the instructor's approval on a
petition was not needed. The Chairman said that the word ”instructor" was not in the
proposed change. Professor Lienhard said that an instructor had to sign the withdrawal
card with a "WP” or ”WP” and therefore the instructor could not be taken out of the pro—

Professor Gesund said that he was still unhappy about the one—third and one—sixth
business. He said there was one additional problem and that was withdrawing during the
first third without leaving a mark of any kind. Professor Gesund proposed an amendment
which was seconded that number one would read:

”During the first week of a course a student may withdraw without
leaving a mark of any kind.”

Number two would read:

”During the remainder of the first half of the course the withdraw—
ing student must receive a mark of a "W.”

Professor Gesund added that he thought it was part of the true academic spirit and if a
student had attended a course for half a semester, some kind of record should be available.



Professor Adelstein said the withdrawal policy had been passed in December, 1977, and
there had been a problem with implementation. He said he thought the Senate was meeting
to discuss the Senate Council's decision on how to implement the policy. He added that
Professor Gesund's amendment was contrary to the spirit of the implementation. He said
he considered that out of order and added that he felt the proposed change number one
could not be amended and should remain as passed by the Senate in 1977. The Chair ruled
that the amendment was in order. Professor Weil said that when the Senate previously
debated the subject of withdrawals there was an interpretation of the meaning of the
grade of ”W” which was now being changed. One of the reasons for adopting the one—third,
one-sixth rule was the interpretation of the grade of "W” at that time and also to have
some distinction between various time periods in which the student was dropping. The
proposal now was what grade to assign the latter half of the semester to indicate what
kind of ”W" a student had such as ”WP", "WP” or a letter grade of an ”E." He said he
felt it was quite appropriate since a new grade was being introduced. Professor Smith
said that he had been offended with the idea of the one—sixth ever since it had been
introduced but something no one ever pointed out was that one—sixth of the semester was
approximately two weeks. He said the Senate instituted the time periods initially trying
to make the ”W" mean a lot of different things and attempted to use time at which the
grade of ”W" was assigned. He added the new proposal very clearly delineated that and he
supported Professor Gesund's amendment. Professor Marlatt asked what the first week and
half week meant. Professor Gesund said that basically he meant the first full week of
classes. He added that it was a week on the calendar from the first day of classes.

Professor Stephenson said that he was sorry the amendment had been introduced so
early in the discussion because he had hoped to hear some discussion about alternatives
that were discussed at a previous meeting. He asked what consideration the Senate
Council had given to the suggestions of Dean Royster and the Undergraduate Council. The
Chairman said that the question was not germane to the amendment, but he responded that
the suggestion receiving the overwhelming approval of the Senate was the proposal by

Dean Royster and the proposal presented was essentially Dean Royster's proposal with a
slight modification. The previous question was moved, seconded and passed. The amend—
ment passed with a hand count of 49 to 45.

Professor Olshewsky made a substitute motion which was seconded to read:
1. Change the meaning of ”W” from ”withdrew passing” to ”withdrew.”
2. Make no change in Senate Rule V. l.8.l.
3. Change Senate Rule V.l.8.2 to read:
(a) A student may withdraw from a class during the latter
half of the term upon approval by the dean of the student's
college of a petition certifying urgent non—academic rea—
sons including but not limited to:
I. Illness or injury of the student;
II. Serious personal or family problems;

III. Serious financial difficulties.

If such a petition is approved by the dean of the student's
college, the student is assigned a grade of "W.”



Professor Olshewsky said that his understanding of the difference in the two proposals was
that the Undergraduate Council's proposal kept the current pattern of one—third with no
grade, one—sixth with a "W” grade and did not introduce the additional machinery outlined
on page three of the original proposal. If a student withdrew from a class with approval
of the Dean for non—academic reasons,the student would get the same grade as though he had
withdrawn during the ”grace period” before mid—term with a grade of "W.” He added if his
substitute motion passed, that would wipe out the Senate Council's proposal and the amend—
ment. Professor Weil said that the way he read the proposal as circulated by the Senate
Council he was not certain that interpretation was correct. The Chairman said that what
the Senate Council did not want to do was take away from the instructor the right to

award a grade except for urgent reasons approved by the Dean.

Professor Ivey said that there were three proposed changes. The first two pertained
to one rule and the last one pertained to another rule, and the first part of Professor
Gesund's amendment concerned V, 1.8.1 and the one Professor Olshewsky referred to was
V, 1.8.2. He said that if they were to be divided, it should be recognized. The Chair-
man said that the answer to Professor Weil's question was that if the Dean assigned a
”WP” or "WP" , he obviously was going to have to consult with someone.

Professor Smith said that the motion on the floor was out of order because the Senate
had just voted to change the items covered by the Gesund amendment. The motion on the
floor was to reverse that action. The Parliamentarian ruled the motion out of order.
Professor Olshewsky said that his own preference was to have the whole package as presented
by the Undergraduate Council, but if he could not have that simplification then he
supported the other proposal as amended. The Chair ruled that the Parliamentarian's
advice was correct, and the substitute motion was out of order A Student Senator appealed
the rule of the Chair for the substitute motion and the appeal was seconded. The
Parliamentarian said that it was debatable and needed a majority vote to sustain the
appeal. The previous question was moved, seconded and passed. The motion to reverse the
ruling of the Chair failed.

Professor Ivey said that if the Olshewsky substitute motion on number three passed,
then the action on the Gesund amendment would be recinded. He added that the items voted
on in the amendment of Professor Gesund applied to V, 1.8.1. If anything were done about
number three it had nothing to do with V, 1.8.1, it only applied to V. 1.8.2. The mis—
take was running items one, two, and three together and assuming that if a change were
made in three, it affected one and two. He added that V, 1.8.1 had been amended.

Professor Adelstein moved and the motion was seconded for a division of the two parts
of the withdrawal rule. Professor Weil asked for an explanation from Professor Adelstein
of the reasons for the proposed division. Professor Weil said that it seemed to him the
proposal was presented as a package, and he saw reasons to support Professor Gesund's
amendment on the grounds that it would be connected with the ”WP" and "WP.” Professor
Adelstein said that he felt the two parts were separate rules. The first rule dealt with
withdrawing the first half of the course, and the second rule dealt with urgent reasons
for withdrawing.

The previous question was moved and passed. The motion to divide Items one and two
passed with a hand count of 49 to 45.



Professor Thrailkill proposed an amendment which was seconded and reads as
1. Change the meaning of "W" from ”withdrew passing” to ”withdrew."
2. Change Senate Rule V, 1.8.2 to read:
(a) A student may withdraw from a class during the
latter half of the term upon approval by the dean
of the student's college of a petition certifying
urgent nonsacademic reasons including but not
limited to:
I. Illness or injury of the student;

II. Serious personal or family problems;

III. Serious financial difficulties.

If such a petition is approved by the dean of the
student's college, the student is assigned a grade of "w."

After further discussion Professor Reedy moved to refer the second item, V. 1.8.2
of the withdrawal rule to the Senate Council for further consideration with the request

that the Council present a proposal to the Senate at their meeting on April 30. The
motion passed with a hand count of 40 to 34.

There was a call for a quorum. There were only 64 voting members present; there—

fore, the last two action items on the agenda could not be considered and were postponed
until the April 30 meeting.

Motion was made to adjourn at 4:35 p.m.

Martha M. Ferguson
Recording Secretary




March 26.. 1979

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council

AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday
April 9, 1979. Proposal from the College of Dentistry
to establish Academic Disciplinary Policies. If

approved, the proposal will be forwarded to the Rules
Committee for codification.


Last year the College of Dentistry formulated a set of
academic disciplinary policies and forwarded them to the Senate
Council for approval and inclusion in the Senate Rules. The
Council sent the proposal to the Senate Committee on Admissions
and Academic Standards, which suggested seyeral modifications.
The Senate Council itself has subsequently made modifications in
the proposalo All these have been accepted by the College of
Dentistry. The Council now submits it to the Senate with a recom-
mendation for approval.

The Proposal:
Academic Disciplinary Policy Number One: Basis for Academic

Objective of the Policy: To define, the basis for academic discipline
in the Professional Dental Education Program

Policy Statement: Disciplinary action for students in the Professional
Dental Education Program will be initiated upon unsatisfactory academic

Responsible Agent: The Dean“



 Page 2
Senate Agenda Item: April 9, 1979
March 26, 1979

Methods and Procedures: Requests to alter academic disciplinary
policy will be made in writing to the Academic Council. (Refer to
the Rules of the Faculty, Section III, 6. 1.)

J. a, Vb
.I‘ ..~ (p

Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Two: Academic Probation


Objective of the Policy: To define academic probation.

Policy Statement: A student who fails a course will be placed on
academic probation. If a student is performing unsatisfactorily in one
or more courses the Academic Performance Committee may recom-
mend probation. The duration of academic probation will be at least
one complete semester. W

Responsible Agent: The Dean.

Methods and Procedures: The Assistant Dean for Student Affairs will
notify the student who is subject to academic probation and will report
this information to the Dean. The Academic Performance Committee
will recommend the terms of probation. The terms of the academic
probation will be stated in a letter from the Dean.

‘5, \l; 4..
q~ in In

Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Three: Academic Suspension


Objective of theiPolicy: To define academic suspension.


Policy Statement: A student will be suspended from the College of
Dentistry if the student:

1) fails to meet the terms of academic probation,

2) is placed on academic probation for a second time,

3) has been in residence in a dental curriculum for five academic
years and has not been graduated,

4) has been admitted with advanced standing and has not been
graduated within one year following the end of the time
period agreed to upon admission,

5) fails two or more courses during an academic year.

Responsible Agent: The Dean.


 Page 3 ,
Senate Agenda Item: April 9, 1979'
March 26, 1979

Methods and Procedures: The Assistant Dean for Student Affairs will
notify the student who is subject to academic suspension and will report
this information to the Dean. The Dean may place a student on academic
probation instead of suspension if the individual case justifies it.

J4 sh
'1‘ vb Ir

Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Four: Procedures for Consideration
of Academic Suspension


Objective of the Policy: To define the review process in consideration of
academic suspension.

Policy Statement: A student who is subject to academic suspension may
request a review.

Responsible Agent: The Dean.

Methods and Procedures: The procedures for the review of academic
suspension will include the following:

1) A review will be held if requested by the student subject to
suspension. This request must be in writing and received
‘ by the Dean within five (5) school days of notification of
suspension. .

The student shall state the basis of the request for reviewo

The Dean will appoint an Ad Hoc Committee of faculty, with
a student representative, to review the case.

A student for whom a review has been scheduled:

a) will be allowed to inspect any records relevant to the
suspension procedure.

b) will be entitled to choose a member of the faculty

and a classmate to be present at the review.

c) will have the right to hear and question any witnesses.
d) will be given the opportunity to present the basis for
requesting a review.

The minutes and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee
will be forwarded to the Dean.


 Page 4
Senate Agenda Item: April 9, 1979
March 26, 1979

6) The Dean will meet with the student to review the
recommendations and solicit comments.

7) The decision of the Dean is final for the College.


Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Five: Participation in Curricular
Privileges or Extracurricular Activities While on Academic

Objective of the Policy: To define curricular and extracurricular
restrictions for students on academic probation.

Policy Statement: A student who is on academic probation will be
excluded from participation in curricular privileges or extracurricular
activities of the College of Dentistry. Curricular and extracurricular
exclusions consist of:
1) taking enrichment courses except as described in
' Curriculum Policy Number Eleven.
2) beginning a totally self-instructional course before the
official starting date unless this course is part‘of a special
curriculum developed by the Academic Performance Committee. ‘
serving as an officer or committee member of any College of
Dentistry organization or committee.
participating in any College of Dentistry extracurricular activity
or in the activity of any College of Dentistry organization if the
participation involves the expenditure of an appreciable amount
of time.

Participation in these activities will be considered a violation of the
terms of probation.

Responsible Agent: The Dean

Methods and Procedures: The Dean'will include these restrictions in
the terms of probation.


Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Six: Removal from Academic



 Page 5
Senate Agenda Item: April 9, 1979
March 26, 1979

Objective of the Policy: To define the conditions for removing a
student from academic probation.

Responsible Agent: The Dean

Methods and Procedures: When a student has met the terms of probation,
the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs will report the student's name to
the Dean.


Academic Disciplinary Policy Number Seven: Reinstatement Following
Academic Suspension


Objective of the Policy: To define the process for reinstatement follow-
ing academic suspension.

Policy Statement: A student on academic suspension may apply for
reinstatement under probation. The reinstatement may not become
effective until at least one complete semester has passed from the

time of suspension.


Responsible Agent: The Dean.

Methods and Procedures: A student may be considered for reinstate-
ment upon submission of a written request to the Dean who shall make
a decision. Upon reinstatement by the Dean, the student will be placed
on academic probation, the terms of which will be recommended by the
Academic Performance Committee.


a. in \b
a" 4‘ 4‘

Grade Review Policy


Objective of the Policy: To define the process for student grade review.


Policy Statement: A student has the right to request and receive a grade

Responsible Agent: The Dean.

Methods and Procedures: A student before requesting a grade review, 'Will
attempt to resolve the issues with the Course Director and the Department



 Page 6

Senate Agenda Item: April 9, 1979
March 26, 1979


Should this meeting fail to resolve the issue, the student

may submit a written request (which should include the basis
for the grade review) to the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
for the formation of a Grade Review Committee.

The Grade Review Committee will consist of five (5) voting

' members (four faculty and one student) appointed by the

Assistant Dean for Student Affairs. The Assistant Dean for
Student Affairs will appoint the Chairperson of the Committee.
The student requesting the grade review is entitled to disqualify,
without cause, a total of two (2.) of the five(5) voting members.
The replacements will be chosen to maintain the composition as
described previously.

The Assistant Dean for Student Affairs will designate the time
and place for the meeting and assure that the issue is resolved
within thirty (30) days of the formation of the Committee. The
student, the adviser, the department chairperson, the course
director, and any other persons having information relevant

to the caSe in question will be requested to attend the meeting,
at which time the situation will be fully discussed by all parties
concerned. Following this open discussion, the Committee will
make a recommendation to the department chairperson and the
course director involved. The Committee will not have the
prerogative of changing the grade.

In situations in which a failing grade subjects the student to
possible suspension, the grade review shall become the responsi~
bility of the Ad Hoc Review Committee considering suspension.

.1. ch .1,
er m en

Joseph A. Bryant
Department 0‘1? ,.
1215 P — Lllglisb

a tterson Offi C(‘ A '1‘