University Senate Minutes - October 10, 2005
The University Senate met on Monday, October 10, 2005 at 3:00 pm in the Auditorium of the Young Library and took the following actions.
Absences: Alexander, Bailey*, Baldwin*, Berger*, Biagi, Bordo*, Butler, Cammers*, Caudill, Cheng, Cibulka*, Cohen, Deem*, DeSimone, Duffy, Duke*, Edgerton*, Eldred*, Ellingsworth, Frost*, Gaetke*, Garen, Gargola*, Garrity*, Getchell, Hasselbring*, Haven*, Hazard*, Hoch*, Houtz, Jackson*, Lester, Lindlof,*, McCormick*, Michael, Mobley, Mohney, Pedigo, Perman, Portillo, Pulito, Ray*, Roberts, Roland*, Shaw, Shay, Smart*, Smith*, Smith*, Steltenkamp, Straus*, Sudharshan*, Terrell, Todd, Turner, Turner, Vasconez*, Vestal, Voss, Williams, C.*, Williams, E., Wise, Witt, Wyatt.
1. Minutes from October 3, 2005
The Chair asked if there were any corrections to the minutes. There being none, the minutes were approved as distributed.
2. Provost search update
The Chair invited Jeannine Blackwell to provide an update. Blackwell invited the Senate to provide input regarding the search. She said the pool of applicants, which is both large and diverse, should be completed in the next few days. She noted that issues such as undergraduate education, preserving the liberal arts core, and personal ethics would be considered when screening the candidates. She added that the committee is very concerned about keeping the committee?s work transparent and hoped they would find candidates who embodied the collaborative spirit with a strong academic background. Blackwell hoped to have candidates identified during the Fall semester and in Lexington for off-site interviews.
Davy Jones asked where the search committee?s web site was located. Blackwell replied that it was on the main Provost web page and included various informational items, including the job description, committee roster, committee charge, various press releases and meeting synopses.
Patricia Burkhart asked if on-campus interviews would be conducted. Blackwell replied that the final three or four candidates would be on campus in either December or January.
3. Proposed changes to AR on Non-Resident Fee Committee
Proposed changes to AR on Non-Resident Fee Committee (PDF)
The Chair invited Suzanne McGurk and Dave Watt to present the item, which was forwarded to the Senate by the Senate Council with a positive recommendation. Watt said the AR was under revision due to increased interest in better controlling the process by which out-of-state students become in-state-students. He added that some colleges had a history of awarding in-state-status to a large number of students who then left the state after receiving their degrees. Watt noted that in fairness to in-state-students and in order to maintain consistency with CPE guidelines, the policy had been revised.
The Chair proposed an amendment to change the phrase ?Faculty Senate? to ?University Senate? to accurately reflect the name of the Senate.
Hans Gesund asked if there was a reason why the appeals were not being handled by the University Appeals Board. McGurk replied that the changes to the AR would continue an appeal process that mirrors the Undergraduate admissions process appeal. She added that the new process would give consistency to what could be a fairly cumbersome process.
At the request of the Chair, Watt noted that the AR revision would require action by the Board of Trustees in accordance with CPE regulations.
There being no further discussion, a vote was taken. The motion on the floor from the Senate Council passed without dissent.
4. Retiree Health Benefits Update
The Chair introduced the item and invited Peffer and Tearney to present. Tearney presented a PowerPoint presentation, which is available for review by visiting Retiree Health Benefits Committee Tentative Recommendations.
Thelin, Grossman and Wood expressed concern that faculty recruitment may be adversely affected by the proposed changes, in that faculty would likely not be attracted to a University that didn?t offer retiree health benefits to new employees.
Cibull expressed concern that not enough information regarding Medicare D was available to determine whether or not each individual person would benefit more by staying with UK-HMO or signing up for Medicare D.
Thelin added that faculty members who came to UK later in their careers would have to work much longer than other faculty who began their careers at UK.
Lesnaw requested information regarding whether or not UK?s benchmark institutions were going to continue to offer retiree health benefits to existing and new faculty. Joey Payne replied that of the few benchmark institutions which offer such a benefit, all of them were considering similar revisions.
Tearney said that the committee will present its proposal to EVPFA Butler in November and will present its recommendations to the Employee Benefits Committee. Tearney encouraged the faculty to visit the committee?s web site and to attend meetings, forums, and to voice their opinions and concerns. The Chair thanked Tearney, Peffer and the rest of the committee.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted by Kaveh Tagavi
Secretary, University Senate
Prepared by Rebecca Scott on November 5, 2005.