University Senate Minutes - September 12, 2005
The University Senate met on Monday, September 12, 2005 at 3:00 pm in the Auditorium of the Young Library and took the following actions.
Absences: Alexander*, Baldwin, Bartilow, Bhavsar, Bordo*, Brown, Butler, Caudill*, Cavagnero, Cheng*, Cibulka, Cohen, Deem, Dembo*, DeSimone, Duffy, Dwoskin*, Edgerton, Eldred*, El-Ghannam, Fording, Gaetke*, Garen, Gargola, Getchell, Gonzalez*, Haist, Hoffman, Johnson K.*, Lester, Lindlof*, McCormick, Mobley, Mohney, Newman, Pedigo, Peffer*, Perman, Portillo, Pulito, Ray, Roberts, Roland*, Shaw, Shay, Smart, Smith D.*, Sottile, Steltenkamp*, Straus*, Sudharshan, Terrell, Todd, Turner S., Turner, W., Vasconez*, Vestal, Williams C., Williams E., Wise, Witt, and Wyatt.
*Denotes excused absence.
1. Approval of Minutes from May 9, 2005
The Chair asked if there were any corrections to the minutes. There being none, the minutes were approved as written.
The Chair recognized the new members of the Senate, as well as Chair Kyle Dippery from the Staff Senate, Robyn Barrett from An/Dor Reporting, Rebecca Scott from the Senate Council Office and James Sparks from Library AV.
The Chair reported that the Senate Council had acted on behalf of the Senate to approve the August 2005 degree candidate list since the Senate doesn't meet during the summer.
He added that he, Thelin and Tagavi had met with the executive search firm that is currently heading up the Provost search. He reported the meeting went well and that he had underscored the need for a Provost who had a scholarly reputation, administrative experience and who could work cooperatively within a governance construct.
The Chair announced that a Provost/Senate Council joint task force will soon be formed and charged with the task of undergraduate education reform and assessment. He said the task force will undertake the serious efforts and innovations involved in revising the general education program of the University.
The Chair then asked Grossman to provide an update of the efforts underway to reform the University's academic offenses policy. Grossman noted that the Student Code of Conduct, which had been an obstacle to the proposal's approval the previous Spring, had been revised in such a way that the obstacle had been removed. He said that the Senate Council asked that one more round of solicitation of opinion on the proposal occur so the proposal could potentially be brought to the Senate for discussion in November and action in December. To that end, a broadcast e-mail will be sent to all faculty and staff in the coming weeks that will include a link to the proposal and rationale and to a portion of the Big Blue Board that will allow interested parties to provide feedback. Solicitation of opinions will last through the end of September. Feedback will be collated and considered by the committee, revisions may be made to the proposal, and it will be resubmitted to the Senate Council in October.
The Chair announced that Senate Council elections will begin in late October. He asked the Senators to consider who they might consider nominating and eventually electing to the Senate Council.
The Chair announced a special called meeting of the University Senate to be held on October 3, 2005 at 3:00 pm in the Lexmark Public Room, 209 Main Building. He noted that the President's schedule prohibited him from attending the other Fall Senate meetings, so a special called meeting was necessary in order to allow the President an opportunity for his annual State of the University address.
The Chair recognized returning parliamentarian Gifford Blyton, who is serving in his 34th year in that capacity. He has served the University in one capacity or another for over 57 years, has outlasted 7 University Presidents and on Sunday will celebrate his 97th birthday. The Chair thanked Blyton for his many years of outstanding service. The Senate applauded Blyton for his service.
2. Interim Provost Scott Smith
The Chair welcomed Smith and invited him to speak. Smith provided an informal overview of the agenda for the upcoming year. Among important upcoming issues he listed the need for increased diversity among the students and the faculty, the need to manage enrollment in an equitable way among the various colleges, and retaining quality students. He noted that while graduate enrollment had decreased the number of doctorate degrees produced annually was stable.
Smith said the President was expected to announce a working group of faculty and key administrators who will begin working to reverse the recent enrollment trends in regard to minority students. He added that possible changes in recruitment strategies and scholarship management may result in order to comply with some recent Supreme Court decisions. He noted that he and Bill Turner will also make some recommendations regarding the future of the President's Commission on Diversity.
Smith spoke well of the faculty's efforts over the past few years to manage increased enrollment and decreasing budgets, saying that the faculty are responsible for the University's recent success. He listed a number of recent successful initiatives in the area of undergraduate education and particularly praised the Math Department for making policy adjustments to address the high D/F/W rates among students in entry-level classes.
Smith said that while he didn't plan to make a lot of recurring commitments during his time as interim Provost he was committed to finding one million dollars to invest in classroom improvement, noting that while it was not enough to fully address the whole problem, it would make a substantial difference. He added that something the next Provost may wish to consider is how to manage enrollment management as it relates to increased budgetary responses.
Smith said that some of the issues that will be forthcoming over the next year will include advances in research management and leadership, the Top 20 Business Plan, the need to increase the membership of the faculty, and generally furthering the University's commitment to excellence.
The Chair thanked Smith and invited him to provide the Provost's annual address in December.
3. Phil Kraemer, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education
The Chair invited Kraemer to address the Senate regarding various undergraduate education reforms and initiatives. Kraemer provided an overview of the history of undergraduate education reform and stressed the need to publicize the many stories of excellent initiatives that are taking place at the University.
Kraemer encouraged the faculty to embrace the Boyer report and the license it gives faculty to really experiment. He said the faculties who have responsibility for teaching should try to teach and think differently to catalyze some creativity in order to enrich the University's teaching mission. He added that it was possible to further one mission without causing detriment to the others.
Kraemer asked the faculty to consider what the nature of undergraduate education should be and what it should be in the future. He said it wasn't enough to just train students for the job market. While training was important it was also imperative that graduates of the University be well educated as well. He added that ever-increasing globalization has emphasized the need to think about how societies interact and how the United States can best position itself for the future in terms of its college graduates. He noted the local imperative, in addition to the global, to consider possible changes to the undergraduate curriculum in order to obtain Top 20 status. He said that not enough attention had been paid to the undergraduate mission in light of House Bill 1 and encouraged the Senate to seize the moment in considering the future of general education reform.
Kraemer concluded by challenging the faculty to consider what sorts of general education goals the University should establish for USP, how we can better educate our students as citizens, who should be responsible for that education, and how it should be taught.
Kraemer finished his remarks and asked the audience if they had any questions.
Grossman asked how Kraemer envisioned overcoming some of the barriers to teaching innovation that relate to the promotion and tenure process. Kraemer replied that the area committees that evaluate such things are composed of faculty, and that a faculty discussion regarding this issue should begin.
Debski asked if Kraemer foresaw the USP Committee putting forward any recommendation to the Senate during the coming year. Kraemer replied that the timing was uncertain, since the first step is to encourage broad campus dialogue about the future of USP.
The Chair thanked Kraemer for his presentation.
4. Linda Siebert Rapoport
The Chair welcomed Siebert Rapoport from the Office of Work Life and invited her to speak.
Siebert-Rapoport reviewed the history and origins of the Office of Work Life and informed the Senators of a survey that will be launched to staff in October and to faculty in late January regarding issues of work-life at the University of Kentucky. Siebert-Rapoport asked the Senators to share information about the survey with their fellow faculty members, to encourage staff participation in the October survey, and to participate in the January survey for faculty. The Chair thanked Siebert Rapoport for her presentation.
5. GR Update, Davy Jones
The Chair invited Jones to speak to the Senate regarding recent changes to the Governing Regulations. Jones noted that in approving the changes to the GR's, the Board of Trustees had more accurately defined what constituted the University faculty, the college faculty and the department faculty, particularly as those faculties interface with their statutory responsibilities. For instance, instead of the whole University Senate voting on the candidates for degree list, only the elected faculty Senators, as the elected representatives of the University Faculty will vote. Jones added that a definition of shared governance is more clearly articulated in the revised GR's, which should encourage both Academic and Administrative decision makers to consult with one another when making important decisions. The Chair thanked Jones for his update.
6. LCC candidates for degree
The Chair asked for a motion to waive the six-day rule and add the item to the agenda. Cibull made a motion to do so, which was seconded by Tagavi. There being no discussion, a vote was taken. The motion passed without dissent.
The Chair went on to say that the legislation governing this action was joint House Resolution 214 regarding the transfer of the management of LCC from UK to KCTCS. As the faculty body of LCC approves lists of its graduates who are candidates for degrees at UK, the list must be submitted through the UK apparatus for the awarding of UK degrees. These are students who matriculated under the UK Registrar system while LCC was still part of the University. UK still manages the academic records of these students until June 2006. These students remain subject to the degree requirements of July 1, 2004 as stated in the UK Senate Rules. If those students complete their degrees by August 31, 2010, they are still eligible for a UK degree. The final approvals received at UK are those by the University Senate and, in turn, the Board of Trustees. The Chair added that a number of people had been involved in checking and rechecking, making sure that no omissions or erroneous inclusions had occurred on the LCC candidate for degree list. The Chair then called for a motion and vote for approval of the list for submission to the Board of Trustees for its final action at the following week's Board of Trustees meeting.
Jones made a motion to approve the list for submission to the Board, which was seconded by Bailey. There being no discussion a vote of the elected faculty Senators was taken. The motion to approve passed without dissent. The list will be transmitted to the Board for its action.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:45pm.
Respectfully submitted by Kaveh Tagavi
Secretary, University Senate
Prepared by Rebecca Scott on September 12, 2005.