xt7zcr5nd58h https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7zcr5nd58h/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1978-05-08  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, May 8, 1978 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, May 8, 1978 1978 1978-05-08 2020 true xt7zcr5nd58h section xt7zcr5nd58h UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY


April 27, 1978

Member 5 , Univer sity Senate

The University Senate will meet on Monday, May 8, 1978 at
3:00 p. m. in the Court Room of the Law Building.


1) Approval of the minutes of the March 13, 1978 University
Senate meeting.

Chairman's Remarks .

Proposal to alter the composition of the Graduate Council
(see attached under date of April 27, 1978).

Proposal to change the grading policy in the College of
Architecture (see attached under date of April 27, 1978).

Proposal to establish a new admission policy in the
College of Engineering. (Circulated under date of
April 21, 1978.)

For Discussion Only: Report from the Senate Committee
on Organization and Structure recommending a University
Senate Committee on the Analysis of Resource Allocations
(circulated under date of April 11, 1978).


Elbert W. Ockerman

Attachments — 2




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p .m. , Monday, May 8, 1978,
in the Court Room of the Law Building.

Paul Oberst, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Roger B. Anderson*, C. Dwight Auvenshine, Lyle N. Back*, Harry H.
Bailey*, Charles E. Barnhart, R. Paul Baumgartner*, Janis L. Bellack*, Jack C. Blanton,
Thomas 0. Blues*, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Joseph T. Burch, Gail Burrows, Charles Byers*,
Patricia Cegelka, Linda Chen*, Donald B. Clapp, Craig Clark, D. Kay Clawson*, Ronda S.
Connaway*, Raymond H. Cox, Marjorie A. Crandall, Donald P. Cross, Patrick P. DeLuca*,
George W. Denemark*, William H. Dennen*, David E. Denton*, Donald F. Diedrich, Marcus
L. Dillon*, Joseph M. Dougherty, Roland Duell*, Jane M. Emanuel*, Calvin Ernst, Donald
A. Falace*, Rick Faust, Chris Fetter, Art Gallaher*, Joseph H. Gardner*, Abner Golden*,
Carol Gordon, John L. Greenway, Joseph P. Guiltinan*, Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hasan*,
Raymond R. Hornback, Alfred S. L. Hu, Eugene Huff*, Donald W. Ivey*, Margaret W.
J0nes*, Mark Koopman, James A. Knoblett*, Richard S. Levine, Arthur Lieber*, Austin S.
Litvak, Jim Lobb, Paul Mandelstam*, Donna March, Emanuel Mason, Susan A. McEvoy*,
Marion E. McKenna*, Dorothy A. Miller*, Phillip W. Miller*, Ernest Middleton, William G.
Moody, James H. Newberry, Jr. , Jacqueline A. Noonan*, Elbert W. Ockerman*, Merrill W.
Packer*, Ronda S. Paul, Bobbie G. Pedigo, Alan R. Perreiah, Jane S. Peters*, Steve Petrey,
Phillip Phillips, Jean Pival*, Don Prather , Billy Renner, JoAnn Rogers , Michael Roloff*,
Jim Rowe, Ramona Rush*, Kathryn Sallee*, Donald E. Sands*, Mark Sauer, John S.
Scarborough*, Jo Schladale, Timothy W. Sineath, Otis A. Singletary*, Tim Skinner, John T.
Smith*, Don M. Soule, Ralph E. Steuer*, Anne Stiene—Martin*, Jennifer Stiles, Willis A.
Sutton*, Leonard Tipton*, Paula Totten, Harold H. Traurig, Pat Van Houten, M. Stanley
Wall, John Wanat, Harry Wheeler, J. Robert Wills, William G. Winter, Judith Worell*,

Fred W. Zechman

The minutes of the regular meeting of April 10, 1978, were accepted as circulated.
Action Items

A. Proposal to Alter Composition of the Graduate Council
Motion passed.

Proposal to Change Grading Policy--College of Architecture
Motion passed as amended.

Proposal to Establish New Admissions Policy--College of Engineering

Motion passed.

*Absence explained


II. Senate Council Activities and Informational Items

A. Report on Resolution Against Increase in Out-of-State Tuition

B. Commencement Exercises, May 13, 1978, 4: 00 p.m.

C. Committee Chairmen Reports
III. Report: For Discussion Only

A. Report From the Senate Committee on Organization and Structure
Recommending a University Senate Committee on the Analysis of
Resource Allocations

Chairman Oberst summarized the Senate Council activities and informational items as

The item at the Senate meeting on April 10 concerning the out-of-state tuition
policy was presented to the Council on Higher Education. The Council was
sympathetic and reduced the increase to one-half for next year and said that
they would determine later what to do about 1979—80.

Chairman Oberst urged the Senators to encourage members of the faculty to
attend Commencement Exercises on May 13, 1978, at 4: 00 p.m. The number
of students and parents attending Commencement is increasing, and the
faculty should be Well represented.

Committee Chairmen should turn in their reports. Even if there is no
business to be passed in the form of motions by the Senate, the Senate
Council would like to know what the committees did. It would help the
newly appointed ad hoc Senate Committee on Structure and Operation of
Senate Committees which will study the business of various committees
with the idea of determining whether or not some committee reorganiza-
tion would be a good idea.

The first action item on the agenda was the proposal to alter the composition of the
Graduate Council.

Motion was made, seconded and passed to suspend the ten-day circulation rule in
order to take up the proposal to alter the composition of the Graduate Council.

Chairman Oberst recognized Professor Daniel Reedy. On behalf of the Senate Council
Professor Reedy presented a motion to adopt the proposal to alter the composition of the
Graduate Council. (This was circulated on the day of the meeting under date of April 27 ,
1978.) The proposal reads as follows:

There has been concern by the University Rules Committee and several
Colleges within the University about the composition of the Graduate
Council in that there are a number of Colleges which have no representa—
tion on the Council, nor do their faculty have a vote for representatives



on the Council. In attempting to address this problem, the Graduate
Council assumed the present composition of the Council was effected

on the basis of number of graduate faculty, number of graduate students,
and the number of programs in the college.

The Graduate Council, Graduate Faculty and University Senate Council
recommend the following new composition for the Graduate Council:

College: Elected Members:


Arts and Sciences (including
Fine Arts)

Business and Economics






Library Science

Social Professions


Home Economics

Allied Health


In addition, two members would be appointed by the Graduate Dean.


Rationale: The Council bases the new composition on the number of
students (Fall, 1976), number of Graduate Faculty (Fall, 1977) , and
the number of doctoral programs. Doctoral programs were used since
with practically each doctoral program there is an associated master's
program. Thus , the inclusion of master‘s programs would have
essentially no relative effect on a weighted average.

In order to give some numerical data for comparison, a weighted
average is calculated,
+ F+
W: Ell-i where


D=number of doctoral programs in college
F=number of Graduate Faculty in programs in college
S=number of graduate students in programs in college

Since the University of Kentucky is the major doctoral degree-granting
university in the State , D and F are assigned heavier weights.



Current Composition of Graduate Council


Colleges Students Grad. Current # of Weighted
Faculty Council Doctoral Average
Mems. Progs . *

Agriculture 149 10 109 . 4
Arts and Sciences 303 19 303.4
Business and Economics 56 2 67.8
Education 77 7 173
Engineering 80 73.
Medicine 93

Pharmacy 16 7O
Dentistry 19

Library Science 5

Social Professions 12

Nursing 49 12

Home Economics 60 19

Allied Health 33 2

Communications 28 11

Fine Arts 69 23


In addition, three members are appointed by the Graduate Dean.

Implementation Date: Fall, 1978.

*Number of doctoral programs participated in, not actual number offered.

The floor was opened for discussion and questions.

Professor Thrailkill said that he had read the justification and it seemed very reasonable ,
but the arithmetic did not add up. Because the number of Ph.D. programs is so much smaller
than the number of students and faculty , the number of programs has essentially no effect on
the weighted average.

Chairman Oberst asked Dean Royster if he would like to speak concerning his arithmetic.

Dean Royster replied that there was an objection to the weights given. He said he didn't
know anything to say about it except that the Graduate School and the Graduate Council
looked at it and that they had taken the number of doctoral programs in which the various
colleges participated and came up with a weighted average but all of it could be thrown out
and just make a recommendation. He said there wasn't anything magical about the numbers.

Professor Thrailkill said that the weights don't mean much unless the three groups are
normalized, and that the formula used doesn't really carry out the apparent intention of the



A question was asked about the programs in Fine Arts--whether there was one doctoral
program or four.

Dean Royster replied that Fine Arts had been in with Arts and Sciences previously and
Arts and Sciences was divided so consequently the Council decided it was best to assign the
doctoral area in music.

The motion to adopt the proposed composition for the Graduate Council passed.

The motion was made, seconded and passed to suspend the ten—day circulation rule in
order to consider the proposal to change the grading policy in the College of Architecture.

Chairman Oberst recognized Professor Daniel Reedy. Professor Reedy presented the
motion to adopt the proposal to change the grading policy in the College of Architecture.
This came without the recommendation of the Senate Council. (This proposal was circulated
on the day of the meeting under date of April 27 , 1978.) The proposal reads as follows:

Proposal: That the grading system employed by the College of Law be
adopted by the College of Architecture.

Rationale: There would appear to exist an increasing incidence of
frustration and discontent on the part of both the faculty and the
student body with respect to the current University marking system
in its application to the program in Architecture.

The chief recurring cause of discontent is obvious enough; the
clumsiness of the grading system when applied to the core content
of the professional program, namely the studio courses, these being
large credit courses ranging from 4 to 7 semester hours per studio
course whose sum (58 semester hours) is almost one half of the
present professional requirements of the College (120) and one third
of the credits required for the degree Bachelor of Architecutre (176).
The quality point value difference between any two letter grades

in the prevailing system of marking is one entire. grade point per
credit hour. As a result, student performance which is somewhat
better or somehwhat poorer than is represented by an unqualified
letter grade (a condition that is more frequently the case than not)
simply cannot be acknowledged, being rounded out, upward or
downward, in simple letters and translated, for purposes of grade
point averaging , into the respective. whole number quality point
values. Because of the semester credits assigned to studio work
such discrepancies in grading occur in rather large increments in
Architecture. Their cumulative impact on a student's G .P.A. is

too significant to continue to be ignored.

Similar, though less vehement, discontent is also frequently expressed
with respect to the grading of the course work comprising the re-

maining half of the professional program.




The employment by this program of the marking system presently ob—
tained in the College of Law would readily obviate both problems.
The College of Law's grading system is set out below together with
respective quality point values.

A+ 4.3 B+ 3. C+ 2. D+
A 4.0 B 3. C 2. D
A- 3.7 B— 2. C- 1. D

As is the case with the system employed by all other academic units,

a student‘s grade record is expressed as a G.P.A. , computed by
multiplying the semester hours of credit for each course by the

quality point value of the grade received in the course , these products

being added together and the sum divided by the total semester hours

According to the advice of the Dean of Admissions and Registrar, the
adoption of this system for the grading of course work in the College

of Architecture would create no significant procedural or computational
problem once the proposed change had been initiated.

This proposal does not affect the use of interpretation of the other letter
grades included in the University Marking System (i.e. , F; I; P;

and S), nor will it change the present College requirement that in all
studio work in Architecture the minimum passing grade from level to
level in the studio sequence shall be a grade of ”C.”

The floor was opened for questions and discussion.

A Senator asked why it came without the recommendation of the Senate Council and
whether or not the Senate Council could agree.

Chairman Oberst replied that the Council could not agree.

Professor Lienhard said that as a member of the Council the reason he voted to pass it on
to the Senate was that although he personally disliked it he did not care what the College of
Architecture did.

Professor Kemp said that the proposal came before the Admissions and Academic Standards
Committee, and the Committee approved it in essence but recommended that the A+ be a 4.0
rather than a 4.3. Dr. Kemp's concern was that each college might get a different type of
grading system.

Dean Eardley said that the problem first came to his attention two years ago, when he
noticed that in almost all cases routine letters to students in architectural studio would
refer to their semester grade in plus or minus terms. Conversations with studio faculty
resulted in the proposition that the College should adopt either a simple 'Pass/Fail and
Distinction‘ grade for studio work or, since that seemed impractical from a number of
points of View, a more elaborate and accurate version of the existing grading system.



Dean Eardley added that the Law School precedent seemed entirely appropriate to the need,
and on the advice of the Dean of Admissions and Registrar, the Law School grading system

is proposed for all course work taken in the College of Architecture to facilitate administrative
clarity and efficiency.

Professor Colton said that it seemed to him that the 4. 3 associated with the A+ created
a problem and could be avoided if the college were willing to sacrifice that.

Dean Eardley reminded members of the Senate that the overall G.P.A. for the enrollment
in the College of Architecture never rises above 2.80, competing with that of the College. of
Nursing for lowest overall G.P.A. in the undergraduate program. He assured them that the
A+ grade would not be used with prodigality, but reserved for those special occasions when a
student has not only produced everything that could possibly be expected of him but poetry
in addition.

Professor Skelland asked how the proposed grading policy compared with other systems
throughout the country.

Dean Eardley replied that the only other system of grading that he was personally
familiar with, other than the Pass/Fail/Distinction system, was that used at Princeton, which
resembled the Law School system, except that, at Princeton there is a first and a second class
”A" grade and each of these can be qualified by plus and minus.

A Senator asked about the University-wide competition such as fellowships where
the student would be penalized for getting a minus.

Professor Kemp said that idea had been discussed in the Admissions and Academic
Standards Committee and if this were adopted, there probably would be some problems in
interpretation among colleges and universities.

Professor Hiatt moved an amendment that the ”A+” be deleted from the proposed motion.

The amendment was seconded.

Dean Eardley said that he would reluctantly accept the amended motion.

Professor Adelstein supported the original proposal because it was reasonable and
logical, and if it made sense to the faculty of that college, then the college should be given
the privilege of having its own grading system , especially in view of the creative nature

and small number of students involved in Architecture.

Professor Jewell said that he totally agreed with Professor Adelstein, but he preferred
approval of the amendment as a feasible way of getting the motion passed.

Motion was made and seconded to vote on the amendment.

On the vote the motion to delete the ”A+” from the proposal passed.



Professor Gabbard asked how it had worked in the College of Law, and the Chairman
responded that the working of the A+ grade in Law was irrelevant to the amended motion.

Professor Reedy said that he felt the question Professor Gabbard asked was an appro-
priate one: that is how the system had worked in the College of Law. He said he was somewhat
reluctant to have the system foisted upon another college without knowing how it worked in
the College of Law.

Dean Matthews said that he did not know what the incidence of the use of the "A+" was
in the College of Law, but he suspected it was quite low. It was his impression that the
grading system as a whole has worked very well in the College of Law.

Student Senator Benson asked how it would affect the grade point average of the students
already in Architecture and if the previous grades would be adjusted or would they continue
on the old system. He also asked if students not enrolled in the college, but taking architec-
ture courses, would be graded according to the proposed new system or the University-wide

Dean Eardley replied that the new system would apply to all students receiving grades in
all courses in the College commencing Fall 1978, and that it would not be retroactive.

Professor Wilson moved that the proposed grading system be applicable only to the be—
ginning students in Architecture.

The motion was seconded.

A Senator asked if the professor would have to be selective and know what students
were beginning students. Dean Eardley responded that each class was different and thus
it might apply only year by year.

Vice President Cochran said that he was not sure that the computer could handle a dual
grading system. He said that if this action were taken it should be contingent upon this

Chairman Oberst asked Dean Matthews if he knew how the numerical grading system had
been phased in at the Law School.

Dean Matthews responded that there was an effective date for the change from the
numerical system to the letter grade and for an interim period the college operated with two
sets of grading systems until those who had begun college before the given date were graduated.

Professor Diachun said that it seemed to him that the computer would be smart enough to
figure the grade point standing with or without the plus and minus.

Professor Weil said that he didn‘t see any particular injustice in having two grading
systems on the transcript.

Professor Wilson said there was an injustice because under the proposed system a new
student's grade point average has the advantage of being higher.

On the vote, the motion that the grading system go into effect only for the entering class
in the Fall 1978 failed to pass.


The vote on the original motion as amended passed.

Chairman Oberst recognized Professor Daniel Reedy. On behalf of the Senate Council
Professor Reedy presented a motion to adopt the proposal to establish a new admissions
policy in the College of Engineering. The proposal was circulated to members of the
University Senate under date of April 21, 1978 , and reads as follows:



Admission to the University of Kentucky does not guarantee admission

to one of the degree programs in the College of Engineering. In addition
to the requirements for admission to the University, all applicants seek-
ing admission to one of the engineering degree programs will be con—
sidered on the basis of the criteria outlined below. In general, admission
depends upon the qualifications and preparation of the applicant, as well
as the availability of resources for maintaining quality instruction. The
admission criteria listed below are the minimum requirements common
for all engineering degree programs. However, certain engineering
programs have admission requirements in addition to the ones common to
all programs. These additional requirements are listed separately at

the end of the common criteria for admission. Admission recommenda-
tions based on these criteria will be made to the Dean by the faculty

of the department administering the degree program.

Application must be made for admission to a specific degree program.
However, subsequent transfer between programs will be permitted and
may be accomplished by applying and satisfying the appropriate
Specified criteria.

In all admission categories , an applicant from a non-English speaking
country is required to take the Test of English as a Foreign Language

(TOEFL) and to have a minimum score of 550 in order to be considered
for admission. (An equivalent score from another English proficiency
test similar to TOEFL may be allowed upon request.)

In the admission considerations, when personal, academic , professional,
or intellectual circumstances tend to discount low academic or ACT
scores, admission may be granted if there is other persuasive evidence
of both the capability and motivation to undertake successfully an

engineering program .

I. Lower Division Admission 1
A. High School applicants or transfer applicants not covered in
B. below must meet all the following minimum admission


1The lower division of an engineering program leading to a baccalaureate
degree is broadly defined as the first two years of the program.




An ACT composite score at or above the 50th percentile on
national (college bound) norms . (However , if the ACT
composite is between 35-50 percentile. admission may be
considered if the sum of the mathematics and science ACT
scores totals 100 or more using national norms.)

AN ACT mathematics score at or above the 50th percentile
on national (college bound) norms . (High School prepara-
tion recommended: 2 units of algebra, 1 unit of geometry,
1/2 unit of trigonometry and l or more units of chemistry
and physics .)

Transfer applicants with at least 24 college semester credit
hours including at least 9 semester hours of mathematics,
chemistry, and/or physics applicable to an applicant's degree
program must meet the following minimum admission criteria:

Students from U.K. Community Colleges and other U .K.

a) Cumulative GPA 3 2 .O.

b) GPA 3 2.0 in the group of courses made up of the mathe-
matics , chemistry, physics, and English applicable
to the degree program.

Transfer applicants from other universities and colleges
will be evaluated for admission on an individual basis.
Evaluation will be based on an applicant‘s cumulative grade
point average on all college work attempted and upon indi-
vidual grades in English, mathematics, chemistry, physics,
and engineering related courses which the applicant may
have completed at the time application is made.

Upper Division Admission:


Students must be accepted into the upper division of their degree
program to be granted an engineering baccalaureate degree from
the College of Engineering. Furthermore, students must complete
a minimum of 30 of the last 36 credit hours required in their
specific degree program @being admitted to the upper division.

2 The upper division of an engineering program leading to a baccalaureate
degree is broadly defined as the last two years of the program.


 Admission From Lower Division:


Students enrolled in the lower division of a degree program
will progress to the upper division upon meeting the criteria
listed below:

1) Completion of a minimum of 60 semester hours acceptable
toward the degree program with a minimum cumulative
grade point average of 2.0.

2) Completion of the following degree program requirements
with a minimum grade point average of 2. 0 in;

Freshman English

Freshman Chemistry Course Sequence
Physics Course Sequence

Calculus Course Sequence

University of Kentucky Transfer Admissions:


Students in other degree program areas within the College,
students identified as being enrolled in a pre-engineering
program in a U .K. Community College, and students in

other on-campus U.K. Colleges, will be admitted to the upper
division on the same basis as 11 (A) above.

Dual Degree Transfer Admission:


Students who have been identified as being officially enrolled
in a formal dual degree program (3-2 program) in an institu-
tion having such program agreement with the College of
Engineering will be admitted to the upper division on the
same basis as H (A) above if they are recommended by the
program director at their first institution.

General Transfer Admission:


A student from outside the University of Kentucky who wishes
to transfer to the College of Engineering and be accepted
directly into the upper division of a degree program must
submit application along with official transcripts showing all
college work attempted. Each applicant will be considered

on an individual basis and will be admitted based on his or
her qualifications and available space in the specific upper
division engineering program for which application is made.


 Additional Specific Program Admission Requirements:
Civil Engineering and Mining Engineering
I. B. 2) Space available in the program will also be considered.

II. A. 2) Include Statics (EM 221) in addition to other already
listed required program courses.

3) Earn a grade of C or better in any civil engineering or
mining engineering (or equivalent) course used to
satisfy a degree requirement.

Electrical Engineering

II. A. 3) Completion of BB 211, BB 221, and EE 222 with a grade
of C or better in each course.

Metallurgical Engineering


II. A. 2) Include all required courses listed in the first two years
of the program, General Studies excepted.

Proposed Implementation Date: Fall Semester, 1978.
The floor was opened for discussion and questions.

Dean Funk said that the objective of this policy was to maintain and improve the quality
of the program. He said that the need had become acute. and the enrollment in the College
would be higher in the Fall than it had ever been and that the research activity had increased.
The faculty, space, and resources have remained constant and are in a serious situation
with respect to lab space. The College'feels it is important that their students have the
proper training. The College's accrediting agency has recommended that the College consider
an admissions policy. In a survey of other engineering schools it was found that 2 out of 20
have open enrollment, 13 have restricted enrollments and 5 are limited enrollments. The
policy is designed to allow a number of ways of entering the College. The policy has been
considered by the faculty of the College of Engineering and they accepted it overwhelmingly.

Professor Weil asked for the distinction between restricted and limited enrollment.

Professor Robe responded that restricted enrollment was where there was a minimum
standard for admission and limited enrollment was where there was a limit on the number of

students admitted.

Professor Adelstein said that the Council supported the proposal.



Professor Robe said that the College had looked at the past several years to see what
the history would have been on the students eliminated from the freshman enrollment by the
new policy. Approximately 15 percent of the freshmen, presently admitted, would have been
disqualified under the new policy. Futhermore, 85 percent in that category did not remain
in the Engineering programs.

Professor irwin said that he could agree with what the College of Engineering was
saying but asked what would happen to the students in that 15 percent category.

Professor Robe said that they might go into another professional college, Arts and
Sciences , a Community College or another university.

Professor Lienhard said that the basic advice given to those students was not to go to
Arts and Sciences but perhaps to go to Counseling and Testing or some other appropriate
place for advice as to what they would be better suited to do.

Professor Longyear said he was told by a former colleague that at some institutions there
were math courses designed specifically to eliminate prospective engineers whose l.Q. ‘s were
90. ProfeSSor Longyear felt that this was quite a waste.

Professor Jewell wanted clarification on Page 2, B 1 whether or not the GPA from
Community Colleges have to be 2.0 in each of the courses listed, or was the GPA figured
collectively. The same question applied to the requirement on Page 3, A 2.

Professor Robe said that the average would be figured collectively.

On the vote, the motion to adopt the proposed admissions policy for the College of
Engineering passed.

The last item on the agenda was for discussion only.

The following report from the Senate Committee on Organization and Structure was pre-

sented to the Senate as a ”discussion” item. This was circulated to members of the University
Senate under date of April 11, 1978, and reads as follows:

The Senate Committee on Academic Organization and Structure
recommends the establishment of a Senate Committee on the Analysis
of Resource Allocations, effective July 1, 1978. The function of the
Committee is to inform the Senate and its Committees of the allocation
of resources by examining and analyzing matters concerning budget,
space , and services. The Committee should not serve as a policy making
body , but will study, when appropriate , such matters as salaries ,
faculty size and strength, student enrollment, space (including class—
rooms), equipment, and renovations of space or equipment relevant to
academic programs and functions. Members of the Committee should
be appointed by the Senate Council from those eligible to vote in
elections for membership to the Senate, and should not be representas
tional of any constituency. The Committee should consist of from six
to eight members appointed to staggered terms of at least three years.



Rationale: Members of the Senate Committee on Academic Organization
and Structure are in unanimous agreement that a need exists for a special
Senate Committee to analyze and to interpret for the faculty obj ective and
complete data on the allocation of resources which are relevant to the
academic functions of the University.

It is proposed that the membership consist of from six to eight
members in order to maintain a committee size which is both small and
adequate in number to permit careful study of the several topical areas
listed above . The limited membership is recommended in order to pro-
vide conditions favorable for personal commitment to the work of the
Committee and for group cohesion. In addition, it is considered impor-
tant that the Committee, as a nonrepresentational body, maintain
strict confidentiality of its proceedings until the presentation of its
final annual report to the Senate and faculty, at which time its report
should be complete, candid, and public.

The staggered three-year terms are recommended in consideration
of the need for an extensive period of familiarization with matters of
budget by each new member, and in consideration of