xt7xsj19pw0n https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7xsj19pw0n/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1986-04-28  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 28, 1986 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 28, 1986 1986 1986-04-28 2020 true xt7xsj19pw0n section xt7xsj19pw0n LNUVERSHY OF KENTUCKY




Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in special session on Monday,
April 28, 1986, at 3:05 p.m. in ROOM 116 of the THOMAS HUNT MORGAN


Minutes of 10 March 1986.
Chairman's Announcements.

a. Wording of Changes in Additions to University Senate Rule
IV - 2.2.1 (c) Relating to Pre—College Curriculum
Requirements and Admission of Students who do not meet
them. (The Senate adopted the general policy at the 14
April 1986 meeting and instructed the Senate Council
and/or the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee to
bring back a specific wording at the 28 April 1986
meeting. As the Council does not meet until April 22nd,
the specific wording will be distributed at the Senate


Proposed Revision in University Senate Rule IV - 2.2.l
(e) Relating to Admission of Student Athletes.
(Circulated for previous meeting under date of 1 April


Proposed University of Kentucky Senate Statement of
Academics and Athletics. (Circulated for previous
meeting under date of 2 April 1986.)

Proposed Recommendation to the Board of Trustees (through
the President) that the University Governing Regulations,
Part X — V a. Relating to Eligibility for Sabbatical
Leave be Amended. (Circulated for previous meeting under
date of 28 March 1986.)




 Page 2
University Senate Agenda: April 28, 1986
16 April 1986

Proposed Change in University Senate Rules V - 2.4.5 and
VI — 1.1, and in the Rules' Glossary of Terms Pertaining
to Final Examinations. (Circulated under date of 17
April 1986.)

Randall Dahl



The University Senate met in special session on Monday, April 28, l986, in
room ll6 of the Thomas Hunt Morgan Building.

Bradley C. Canon, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: Curtis W. Absher*, Charles T. Ambrose*, Roger B. Anderson*,
Richard Angelo, Kathlene Ashcraft, Michael Baer, Charles E. Barnhart, Brian
Bergman, Raymond F. Betts, Frank Bickel, Jr., Tex Lee Boggs, Peter P. Bosomworth,
Ray M. Bowen, Charles W. Byers, John Cain, I. K. Chew, Kenneth W. Davis, Stephen
C. Deger*, Leo S. Demski*, Marcus Dillon, Richard C. Domek, Robert Lewis Donohew*,
Herbert N. Drennen, Paul M. Eakin, Anthony Eardley, Donald G. Ely*, Richard W.
Furst, Fletcher Gabbard*, Art Gallaher, Jr., Marilyn D. Hamann, S. Zafar Hasan*,
Leonard E. Heller, Roger W. Hemken*, Alison Hodges, Raymond R. Hornback, Susan
Johnson, John J. Just, Jay T. Kearney, James King, James R. Lang, Arthur Leiber*,
Edgar D. Maddox, Paul Mandelstam*, Kenneth E. Marino, Richard McDougall, Patrick
J. McNamara, John Menkhaus, Peggy Meszaros, H. Brinton Milward, Mark Moore,
Michael T. Nietzel*, Robert C. Noble*, Todd Osborne, Merrill W. Packer, John J.
Piecoro*, Robin D. Powell, Madhira D. Ram*, Thomas C. Robinson, Wimberly C.
Royster, Edgar L. Sagan, Karyll N. Shaw*, Otis A. Singletary*, Joseph V.
Swintosky, Kenneth R. Thompson, Kellie Towles, Jesse Weil, James H. Wells, Charles
Wethington, Peter Winograd, Carolyn Williams*

The Minutes of the meeting of March lO, l986, were approved as circulated.

Chairman Canon recognized Professor John Landon for a Memorial Resolution on
Professor Harold Edwin Wetzel.


Harold Edwin Wetzel

Harold Edwin Wetzel, emeritus professor in the College of
Social Work, died April 2l in Lexington. A native of Dayton,
Ohio he earned the Bachelor of Science degree in Social
Administration as well as his Master of Arts degree from Ohio
State University. In addition he completed all work other
than his dissertation towards his Ph.D. degree at Ohio State.

Beginning in l937 Professor Wetzel spent six years as an
instructor in the Department of Sociology, Ohio State, after
which he came to the University of Kentucky. He was appointed
as Professor and organized and served as first Chairman of the
Department of Social Work from l944-1969 when the College of
Social Professions was organized and a Master's degree program

Harold Wetzel had a distinguished career in social work
education. He was Vice-President of the National Council on
Social Work Education in l949, and was one of the original
founders (in l952) of‘the Council on Social Work Education the


 nationa1 accrediting body, serving as its Vice-President in
1955. He was President of the Nationa1 Association.of Schoo1s
of Socia1 Administration from 1948—1950, University of
Kentucky representative to the CSWE House of De1egates from
1951-1969 and a member of the Counci1's Board of Directors
from 1951—1954. He served on the Advisory Committee to
Secretaries Ribicoff and Ce1ebrezze of the U.S. Department of
Hea1th, Education and We1fare from 1960-1964; and served on
the Kentucky Commission on Aging from 1952-1962 (of which he
was Chairman from 1960—1962). He was a Charter Member of the
Nationa1 Association of Socia1 Workers and of the Academy of
Certified Socia1 Workers.

Professor Wetze1 took sabbatica1 1eave in 1968 and served
as visiting professor of socia1 work at the Graduate Schoo1 of
Socia1 Work, University of Wisconsin. He pub1ished artic1es
in Pub1ic We1fare (The Journa1 of the American Pubiic We1fare
AssociationS, the Proceedings of the Annua1 Program Meeting of
the Counci1 on Soc1ai Work Education, The Kentucky Law Journa1
and the Proceedings of the Ohio Association of C011eges. He
was the Secretary-Treasurer of the Kentucky Socia1 We1fare
Foundation from 1958 unti1 1984. He was a board member of
severa1 socia1 service agencies inc1uding the Lexington
Community Chest, Fayette County Chi1dren's Bureau, Fami1y
Service Society, Kentucky We1fare Association, the Lexington
Census Tract Committee, and the Executive Committee of the
University of Kentucky Counci1 on Aging.

Professor Wetze1 was 1isted in Who's Who In America,
Who's Who in the South and Southwest, American‘Men of Science
and the Directory of American Scho1ars. He was honored with
the Distinguished Service Award of the C011ege of
Administrative Science, Ohio State University.



Professor Wetze1 retired from the University of Kentucky
in June 1970 after twenty-five years of continuous service.
He was recognized for his outstanding contributions to under—
graduate socia1 work education by the presentation of an award
at the Annua1 Program Meeting of the Counci1 on Socia1 Work
Education in New Or1eans in 1978.

Haron Wetze1 was a man of outstanding persona1 qua1i-
ties. He carried on an extensive correspondence with former
students offering encouragement and advice. He was he1pfu1 to
each of the Deans and facu1ty members who guided the socia1
work program at the University of Kentucky after his retire-

His Tong association with the University and his know—
1edge and experience in the fie1d of socia1 work education
enab1ed him to make a significant contribution to the C011ege
of Socia1 Work during its formative years.

He gave his persona1 1ibrary to the University and it
became the nuc1eus of the Socia1 Work Library now housed on

the fifth f1oor of King Library.


 His warmth and friendliness will be sorely missed.

Professor Wetzel is survived by his wife of over 56
years, Faye Brook Wetzel; a son, Allan Wetzel of Chicago; a
daughter, Susan Diachun of Youngstown, New York; six grand-
sons, a sister, Dorothy; and brothers Kenneth and David of
Dayton, Ohio. Memorial contributions may be made to the
Harold E. Wetzel Student Loan Fund at the College of Social
Work, University of Kentucky.

(Prepared by Professor John Landon, College of Social Work)

Chairman Canon requested that the Memorial Resolution be entered into these
minutes and that copies be sent to the family. The Chairman asked the Senators to
stand for a moment of silence in tribute and respect to Professor Harold Edwin

The Chairman made the following announcements:

"First, the Senate Council has called for suggestions
or nominations for people to serve on the University
Studies Committee. At the last meeting the Senate voted to
have the Senate Council appoint this committee and we hope
to do it prior to the first of July so that the committee
can get on the road and running by the first of July. If
you have suggestions, please send them to the Senate

The Senate Council has been active in two or three
areas. First, we have received from the President's Office
a proposed revision of the Administrative Regulations
relating to early retirement. The Senate Council will
review it and make possible suggestions for changes and
send it to the Board on Trustees. Unfortunately, any of
you who plan to retire early this year will not be able to
do so, but any of you who want to retire next year will be
able to do so, if you are eligible. Basically one change
would allow faculty over 55 with a minimum of fifteen years
of service to retire. The University would not put in the
TIAA/CREF contributions and they would receive only modi-
fied health insurance from the University. However, all
benefits would accrue to them when they turned 65. A
second provision would allow faculty 62 to 65 with a mini—
mum of 20 years to retire. The University would continue
to give TIAA/CREF benefits to them or would give it to them
in a lump sum at 62 if they want it and would continue the
normal health insurance.

The Senate Council discussed the liability insurance
problem. We have drafted a resolution which will be sent
to the Administration. We realize this is a problem
nationwide. The University is making great efforts in
trying to obtain liability insurance. The resolution will
emphasize to the Administration that the faculty is very
worried about the lack of liability insurance.


 The Senate Council elected Professor Bob Hemenway of
the English Department to be the Chairman—Elect next year
and the Chairman for l987-88. Wilbur Frye will be the
Chairman of the Senate Council next year. The faculty
election for its member on the Board of Trustees was won by
Raymond Betts, Department of History and Director of the
Honors Program. Professor Betts will take office on July l.

As you came in, you may have picked up a resolution on
the qualifications for the President of UK. This resolu-
tion was written by Professor Lester Goldstein of the
Biological Sciences School. He asked me to put it on the
agenda at the end of the regular agenda. If it is to be
formally adopted, it requires a waiver of the ten—day
circulation rule. Even if it is not formally adopted, the
Senate Council would be glad to hear some expressions from
Senators about the qualifications they feel are desirable
for the next president. The Senate Council will, if no
resolution passes the Senate, adopt a resolution and get it
to the members of the Search Committee before mid May.

This is my last meeting as presiding officer. It has
been a busy year, and I think you will agree it has been a
fairly productive one. The Senate has accomplished a lot
during the year. I think it is important that the Senate
and the Senate Council continue to be active and produc—
tive. A concerned Senate and Senate Council are necessary
in order to guide the faculty over the transition period
from the old President to the new President. I have
enjoyed serving as the Senate Council Chairman and presid—
ing over the Senate this year. I want to thank members of
the Senate Council, Chairmen of the Senate Council Commit—
tees, and the Senators for helping me out and for being
cooperative. I want to thank Celinda Todd, the Council's
Administrative Assistant, and Martha Sutton for recording
the Senate meetings, Gifford Blyton for making the crucial
parliamentary decisions he has had to make, and to thank
Randall Dahl in his capacity as Secretary of the Senate for
making sure the equipment was ready, meetings ran in an
orderly fashion and the correspondence got out. I also
want to thank Mary Mayhew and Frankie Garrison for serving
efficiently as Sergeants—at-Arms in the Senate. I found
presiding over the Senate and chairing the Senate Council
to be an educational experience. I know a lot more about
the University than I did before. I think Wilbur will find
the experience just as rewarding next year and just as

Item "a" on the agenda was withdrawn. The Senate Council felt that it should
not rush into rewording the Pre-College Curriculum Requirements or the exception
provisions hastily and decided to prepare the item for the September agenda
instead. ~


 Chairman Canon recognized Professor Wilbur Frye for the first agenda item.
Professor Frye, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved approval of the proposed
revision in University Senate Rule IV — 2.2.l (e) Relating to Admission of Student
Athletes. He said that the revision proposed to admit student—athletes if they
meet SEC and NCAA academic requirements for freshman eligibility. This proposal
was circulated to members of the Senate under date of April 1, l986.


The Chairman recognized Professor Loys Mather, Chairman of the Senate's
Admission and Academic Standards Committee. Professor Mather stated that this
proposal was before the Senate because the Selective Admissions Standards adopted
by the Senate in the Spring of l983 contained standards of admission of student—
athletes which expired this spring. The l986 expiration was inserted because the
NCAA was then in the process of revising its admission—eligibility standards.
This year the NCAA did make a major change in their admission-eligibility
standards, as follows: The student must have a minimum 2.0 grade point average in
a core of ll academic courses. Second, the student must have a minimum ACT score
of 15. In addition, the NCAA has implemented the satisfactory progress rule.
Once a student is enrolled he/she must register for and complete twenty—four (24)
credit hours a year. He/she must complete a minimum of eight (8) credits a
semester. By the time the student has reached the junior year he/she must have
declared a major. In trying to incorporate these changes in UK‘s package for
admission, the committee is proposing a change in the admission of athletes. For
those student-athletes who would satisfy the automatic admissions criteria, the
proposal has no effect. The students affected would be those otherwise eligible
for the delayed pool. Professor Mather presented a chart on UK's Admission
Requirements and NCAA/SEC Freshmen Eligibility Academic Requirements. [A copy is
attached at the end of the Minutes.] The Committee wanted to propose to the
Senate that all the admissions standards in the Senate Rules be reviewed during
the l989-90 academic year. The amendment was seconded. There was no discussion
and the amendment passed unanimously in a voice vote.

In the discussion on the original motion as amended Professor John Rea wanted
to know if the proposal failed, would the amendment still stand. The Chairman
said it would not, but there would be three years to add the amendment. Professor
Hans Gesund was surprised that the old ”separate but equal" doctrine had arisen in
education. He called the Senate's attention to the Senate's statement on academic
and athletics which reads, "Young men and women who participate in intercollegiate
athletics as representatives of the University are first and foremost students,
and secondarily athletes." He felt student-athletes should be admitted under the
regular admissions criteria. His hope was that the Senate would totally reject
the admissions proposal for student—athletes and asked for defeat of the motion.

Professor Robert Lawson said that the NCAA was trying to provide more meaning-
ful effort for academic performance by student-athletes than has existed. Under
the old rule to be eligible the student needed only a 2.0 on a high school trans-
cript. The new rule requires that the athlete declare a major and that each year
the student complete twenty—four (24) hours toward a degree. It also was designed
to require more stringent admissions requirements through the defining of freshman
eligibility. This is l5 on the ACT and 2.0 on the core curriculum. The penalty
that NCAA imposes for admission of a student who does not meet that requirement is
the loss of a year of eligibility. The GPA requirement is measured by looking at
only the core curriculum of which there will probably be more rigorous courses
than the University's standards. Professor Lawson also noted that to have the


 student-athletes go through the rank—order pool created problems, related to the
time involved in recruiting and creation of the rank-order pool. He said the UK
Athletic Department was serious about the academic interests of the student-
athlete long before the NCAA got serious. During Joe Hall‘s era there were
thirty-six (36) basketball players that completed their eligibility and thirty
(30) of those thirty—six (36) received degrees and two others are in the process
of completing their work. The football program under Coach Claiborne has been
just as good. This year there were twenty-four (24) players that completed their
eligibility and twenty-three (23) of them will graduate by this coming December.
He felt there was a need for the special rule and it would serve the University's

Professor Alan Butterfield raised other issues that might cause one to serin
ously consider whether the proposal should be defeated. He wanted to know how the
core courses related to the resolution passed at the last Senate meeting identiw
fying pre—college curriculum as those courses which students have to meet to enter
UK. Secondly, he felt the timing issue was a red herring because if a student is
interested in coming to the University he/she can apply well ahead of time. As
far as the twenty-four credits per year, that is still twenty-four short of

Professor Enid Haldhart said if students were not eligible to play the first
year for academic reasons, they will not have the chance to play the additional
year of eligibility. She felt the Senate should take into account that athletes
are in an exceptional situation and that the University needs to respond to it by
being willing to_make early admission decisions. She said the ACT score was
higher for the athletes according to the NCAA standards. People who fall into the
rank—order pool would not know until March whether they will be able to come out
of the pool. That puts an unnecessary crimp on both the coaches who are recruit—
ing and the students. She also noted that the student athlete ACT score was l5
instead of ll and that the GPA of 2.0 was requested on core courses for athletes,
not all courses. Professor Waldhart also said that she was initially of the same
mind as Senator Gesund about not treating athletes separately, but after the
committee got into exploring the problems she believed the university had to
respond more quickly to their particular situation and that the response proposed
here did not give student athletes a lower admission standard than was set for

The previous question was moved, seconded, and passed. The revised wording of
Section "e" along with the provision for a review in the l989—90 year of all
admissions standards passed in a voice vote. The revision reads as follows:



(e) Student-Athletes

Student athletes who do not meet standards for automatic
acceptance prior to 1986—87 must meet Southeastern Athletic
Conference (SEC) and National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) academic requirements. Student-athletes
who are to be admitted according to these standards should
be identified by the Athletic Director to Chancellor for
the Lexington Campus as being vital to the University's
intercollegiate athletic program.


 moment) RULE:

(e) Student-Athletes

Student—athletes, as identified by the Director of Athletics,
who do not meet established standards for automatic acceptance
but do meet Southeastern Athletic Conference (SEC) and National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) academic requirements for
freshman eligibility shall be admitted. Such student-athletes
shall not be included in the rank—order pool. Student—athletes
who do not meet SEC and NCAA academic requirements for freshman
eligibility may be admitted only through the provisions of
section 2.1.1 (d) above.


The present Senate rule dealing with the admission of student—
athletes expires at the end of the academic year, thus it is necessary
to make revisions. When the selective admission standards were
approved by the Senate, the question of admission of student—athletes
was "put on hold" because at that time the NCAA had indicated that new
academic standards for eligibility were being considered. Now that
these new, more stringent standards are in place, it is time t01nake
needed adjustenents in the standards for admission of student—athletes
to the University of Kentucky.

Those students (athletes or not) who meet automatic admission
standards would have no problem being admitted to the University of
Kentucky. However, the case of those students who do not meet
automatic acceptance standards presents several significant problems.
Hence, the revision of this rule centers around those students who
would not meet automatic admission requirements.

At present, non—athletes who are not automatically accepted
become part of the rank—order pool if they have applied by February 15
and not later than March 1. Athletes, especially scholarship
athletes, often have not been identified and may not be able to make a

commitment to the university so as to meet these deadlines. The
Registrar cannot certify eligibility for participation in inter—
collegiate athletics until near the end of the student's senior year
and often only after graduation. As such, it is virtually impossible
to admit these persons through the rank-order pool as it exists. With
the proposed procedures, student—athletes who do not meet automatic
admission standards will be able to accommodate dates that are
necessarily different. In addition, non-athletes' chances for
admission would not be potentially jeopardized by student—athletes.

The standards proposed for student-athletes are not identical
with the selective admission requirements for non-athletes. Although
the standards are different, they are comparable and they do uphold
the integrity of the selective admission standards which were designed
to attract a student population fully ready to complete unviversity
coursework and a degree. As proposed, student-athletes who do not

meet automatic admission standards must meet a combination of


Minimum fig: 9: l; (UK's minimum is ll);

of their high school work (UK requires only an overall 2.0
GPA). These ll academic units are English—-3, mathematics-
2, social sciences——2, natural sciences-2, and 2 additional
courses from these subject areas. (A comparison of the UK,
the NCAA, and the Council on Higher Education curricula is
attachedJ Since these academic courses are likely to
represent the most difficult subjects for students, a
standard of 2.0 from these courses would probably mean that
the student's overall GPA would be higher than a 24L UK
requires a 2.0 overall GPA.

The relationship between the core coursework and ACT scores is
such that coursework in those areas examined by the ACT most often
leads to higher ACT scores. Hence, one would expect that student-
athletes would enroll in more English and mathematics courses and
presumably, then, ACT scores could be expected to rise.

An additional set of standards to maintain eligibility for
athletic competition mean that once student—athletes are on campus:

1. The athlete must be enrolled as a full—time student (12
credits per fall and spring terms);

2. Must earn 24 credits per year (a minimum of 8 per semester) ;

3. Must maintain satisfactory progress toward a degree objective
which means that the student must declare a major by the
beginning of the fifth semester andrnust make satisfactory
progress of 24 credits per year toward that declared degree


‘ While these standards were designed for certifying eligibility
for particpation rather than for admission, they would ensure that
once student-athletes are on campus, they must produce academically as
well as athletically.

Students who do not meet NCAA/SEC standards (an admission
standard more stringent than the present UK standards) will still have
the same options for admission as do non—athletes through Rule
IV,2JJl (d), admission by exception. One can presume, however, that
this group will become virtually non-existent since the new NCAA
standards require that such students could not participate or practice
in their sport during their freshman year plus they will lose a year
of eligibility.

While this different but comparable set of admission standards
proposed for student—athletes may not represent the ideal solution to
the problem, it maintains the integrity of selective admissions at the
University of Kentucky and also allows for the particular needs of
this group of students without jeopardizing those of any other group.

NOTE: ADDITION TO SENATE RULE IV - 2.l (added as an amendment to the
above revision to be codified by the Rules Committee.)

The University‘s complete undergraduate admissions policy and all
associated academic standards shall be reviewed by the Senate during
the l989—9O academic year.










Four units from English I, II, III, IV

Three units from grammar, vocabulary development,
composition, literature, analytical reading or oral

Four units from English I, II, III, IV

Three units from Algebra I, Geometry I, Algebra II

TWO units from algebra, geometry, trigonometry,
statistics or calculus

Three units from Algebra I and Geometry I plus a
nathenatics elective





Two units from Biology I, Chemistry I, Physics I

Two units including instructional elements in biology,
chemistry, physics, environmental science, physical
science or earth science. In addition, students must
complete at least one laboratory class if offered by
the high school.

Two units including Biology I or Chemistry I or Physics
I plus a science elective





Two units: U.S. History and Wbrld Civilization

Two units from history, social studies, economics,
geography, psychology, sociology, government, political
science or anthropology

TWO units: U.S. History and WOrld Civilization


UK & CHE Nine additional elective units for a total of 20 units


and a 2.0 gpa on the 20 units

Two units of additional academic credit which must be
selected from the four academic areas (above) for a
total of 11 core courses and a 2.0 gpa on the 11 core
units. Also, the student must have received enough
additional credits to have graduated from high school.


 The Chairman again recognized Professor Wilbur Frye. Professor Frye, on
behalf of the Senate Council, moved approval of the proposed University of
Kentucky Senate Statement on Academics and Athletics. This proposed statement had
been circulated to members of the Senate under date of April 2, l986.

The Chairman recognized Professor Loys Mather. Professor Mather said that
Auburn University had sent the Senate Council a similar statement. Auburn wanted
all SEC institutions to adopt the statement or one similar to it. Professor
Mather said that the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee had little
problem accepting the statement because UK already was following policies and
philosophies embodied in the statement.

Professor Gesund moved an amendment to delete items # 2 and # 3. The motion
died for Tack of a second. Professor Lester Goldstein moved an amendment to
delete the second sentence of the second paragraph beginning with ”We accept our
responsibility...." He felt it was a contentious issue and would lead to
unnecessary debate. The amendment was seconded. The amendment failed in a voice
vote. The statement was adopted unanimously and is attached at the end of the

Chairman Canon recognized Professor Wilbur Frye for the third agenda item.
Professor Frye, on behalf of the Senate Council, recommended approval of the
proposed recommendation to the Board of Trustees (through the President) that the
University Governing Regulations, Part X - V a. Relating to Eligibility for
Sabbatical Leave be Amended. Professor Frye said the recommendation would allow
an individual to postpone a sabbatical leave for the University's benefit without
losing‘credit for the time postponed. This revision had been circulated to mem—
bers of the Senate under date of March 28, 1986. The Chairman added that the
Senate Council has shown the recommendation to Chancellors Bosomworth and Gallaher
and they had no objections to it. Professor Jesse Harris was the one who had
originally proposed the revision.


The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Harris said he
had noted that faculty who take a variety of administrative roles would delay many
years in taking a sabbatical. It seemed to him the distinction between whether it
was to the benefit of the University or the individual made a difference. The
proposed recommendation passed unanimously and reads as follows:


5. Leaves of Absence

a. Sabbatical Leave [Paragraph 3: underlined portion is new]

After six years of continuous eligible service, an
individual may apply for one year‘s leave (academic year for
appointees on academic year, ten-month, or eleven—month
assignments) at one-half salary or six months' leave (academic
semester for appointees on academic year, ten—month, or
eleven-month assignments) at full salary. After three years
of continuous eligible service, an appointee may apply for six
months' leave (academic semester for appointees on academic


 year, ten-month, or eleven-month assignments) at one—half
salary. Normally ”continuous service“ is interrupted by a
sabbatical leave; that is, no service prior to a sabbatical
leave may be credited toward eligiblity for future sabbatical
leave. However, in the event that it becomes necessary for an
individual to postpone a sabbatical leave at the request of
and/or for the benefit of the University or one of its
educational units, the period of’postponement shall be counted
as part of the six years of service necessary for the
individual to again become eligible fOr sabbatical leave. The
request for and/or agreement that the sabbatical leave be
postponed must be made in writing by the Dean of the
individual's college and be approved by the appropriate
chancellor. The request or agreement must specify the period
of postponement and the reason for it. In no case shall
cumulative sabbatical leave be granted for a single period
longer than one full year at full salary. Leaves of absence
without pay are not normally credited toward eligibility for
sabbatical leave. However, exception may be made when the
leave enhances the value of the individual to the University,
e.g., a leave to accept a fellowship or a grant, service for
professional organizations, and so forth. In no case shall
the leave of absence without pay be considered as an
interruption of continuous service.









As the Governing Regulations now read, a faculty member
is eligible for sabbatical leave after six years of continuous
service. A sabbatical leave breaks the continuous