SENATE
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Regular Session
W. T. Young Library
First Floor Auditorium
Dr. Jeffrey Dembo, Chair
An/Dor Reporting & Video Technologies, Inc.
(859) 254-0568
* * * * * * * * *
JEFFREY DEMBO, CHAIR
GIFFORD BLYTON, PARLIAMENTARIAN
REBECCA SCOTT, SECRETARY TO SENATE COUNCIL
MARLA FRYE, COURT REPORTER
* * * * * * * * *
The chair called the meeting to order at
CHAIR DEMBO: The meeting is called to order.
One of the marks of my doing a good job
today is to be able to hand over this
gavel to Ernie Yanarella at the end of
the meeting. So that's what we need to
accomplish by
what's going to happen if we don't,
Ernie. I'm just, boy, I don't know. So,
I'm trying to stick to a very tight time
schedule today with, I think, enough time
to intelligently and colleagually discuss
all the issues and to have the Senate
make an informed vote. I also hope that
there's an extra minute or two in there
somewhere. If it does look like we'll
complete our meeting, I have a few words
I'd like to say in my role as presiding
officer at the last meeting of the
University Senate during my term.
The minutes from March 8th, we
didn't receive, Rebecca, I don't think
any recommended changes and, so, without
any objections, the minutes will stand
approved as written.
I have several announcements to
make. The first is, you know, my role
as - as presiding officer and Senate
Council Chair, was supposed to announce
to the Senate when there have been rules
waived on behalf of the Senate. Some -
a year or two
ago, the
decided that we should form a separate ad
hoc committee on student reinstatements.
The Senate Rules state that if you've
been suspended
from
cannot be readmitted. However, there are
select circumstances where the rule has
been waived owing to very special
circumstances, and the college, in fact,
comes forward and asks the Senate to
waive the rule. So, the ad hoc committee
has been made up of myself, Kaveh Tagavi
and Braphus Kaalund, all members of the
of these reinstatements during the 2004
year. One, January 3, and March. So,
I'm announcing that to you. And there's
also been one grade change. The Senate
Rules state that a grade cannot be
changed for a second time. However, in
this case, there was somebody whose I
grade reverted to an E but, in fact, the
work that was supposed to have been done,
was done, so the college sent it forward
recommending that the correct final grade
be given which was an A for that student.
And that's been taken care of.
Another announcement, faculty
Trustee elections will begin this
Wednesday, April 14. It's going to be an
electronically-based election as we did
last time. All the bugs have been worked
out of the software. There's going to be
information on the Web site for faculty
who have difficulty logging on, using
their U-connect ID. There's going to be
a broadcast e-mail that should go out, I
guess, tonight or tomorrow --
SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
CHAIR DEMBO: -- tomorrow to go to all
faculty. The slot that's going to be
vacated is that of
may recall, Davy was filling in for a
departed Trustee, Claire Pomeroy from the
Coast. And by the rules, Davy had to
fill in Claire's remaining term. So, he
didn't get to serve a full three years.
However, I would like to make a public
thank you to Davy for his very effective
representation of the faculty. And on a
personal note, I want to thank him for
his knowledge of and passion for the role
of faculty and shared governance of the
University. I appreciate, Davy, how much
you've taught me over these years. Thank
you very much.
(AUDIENCE CLAPS)
CHAIR DEMBO: And the three candidates, we
only had three nominees for this
election, so there's only going to be one
round of election. Roy Moore from
Communication Information Studies, Carol
Steltenkamp
and Dean White.
served as Chair
of the
the past and as a Senator. Carol has
just been elected Senator from the
Senate Committee on - John, what's the
name of your committee again? Academic
Program Planning and Priorities. Thank
you. And Dean White, who's been a
sitting Senator for a number of years
from my college, the College of
Dentistry. That's it for announcements,
aside from the misspelling.
The next item on the Agenda is
Phyllis Nash to report the progress of
the IRIS. And once again, my humblest
apologies on behalf of the Senate because
twice we have canceled you because of
other pressing matters. So, as things
work out at the University, if you wait
long enough, the whole agenda changes
anyway, and now Phyllis can report on
what happened as a result of the IRIS
Committee.
NASH: Do you want me to give my
presentation?
CHAIR DEMBO: Yeah.
NASH: I'm actually expecting a fire
drill about any minute. I notice that I
have five minutes on the agenda. So, I'm
going to go into high speed and talk as
quickly as possible. I do want to let
you know the progress that we're making
on the Integrated Resource Information
Systems which is really a replacement of
our major administrative applications
here at the University. You might ask -
you've probably heard about this thing
called an ERP, the - the words make no
sense whatsoever. But, basically, this
is a preengineered set of applications
that really help to do the business of
the institution. You may - what does
this have to do with faculty? Well,
really, all of the administrative
functions of the University such as
registering students, getting their
financial aid, their billing, their
transcripts, you getting paid, your W2s,
all of that, making sure that the
accounts receiveables and payables are
taking care of and purchasing, all of
these are managed by our applications.
During this project, we will be replacing
our student information system, our
financial resources system, our human
resources system, our supply chain
management system. Eventually, we will
get to document imaging, to grants and
contracts, to development enhancement.
Any - any way you look at it, we're
going to touch every life and make
everybody at the University miserable
before it's over. One of the things that
you may wonder is: Why should we do
this? Given the budget situation, this
is a very expensive project. You may
say: Why would we not put this on hold?
Well, there are several reason, and -
and several are very practical. First of
all, the University just does not have
the information at - at the time that we
need it. Our current systems are not
well integrated. The systems cannot talk
to each other. You have to - when you
generate a report, you have to go to
various different places across the
institution. The information is not real
time. It's dated. And, so, in order to
be responsible and responsive as we need
to be in this changing environment, we
need information. Secondly, the
technology environment that we're using
is incredibly obsolete. We're only one
of five in the entire world that are
using the three major program
applications, FRS, HRS and SIS, and
they're only 14 in the world that are
using one of those. These systems are
all so customized that they are - that
the vendors don't even support them.
They are so unscalable so that during
student registration, for example, we
have to shut down other parts of the
system in order to get registration
accomplished. Every time that there's a
payroll, I'm told, that the folks over in
the IT center cross their fingers and
just hope that it's going to run. So,
our systems are really obsolete, and we
really have no real choice but to get
moved as quickly as we can off of those
systems. Certainly, with an issue like
financial aid where the federal
regulations change on an every other
month or so situation with GASBY that we
had to be responsive to and the federal
government, we really had to use a lot of
our internal resources to go in a
configure our current systems in order to
be responsive to these requirements,
these federal regulations. And because
of that, certainly, the services that you
get, the services that our students get,
are not very efficient and not very
effective. We have a lot of double-data
entry. We have a lot of shadow systems
that are trying to accomplish the work of
the University, and hopefully, we'll be
able to respond to those and make them
better. Also, many of our business
processes are totally out of date and,
so, we hope during this process to get
more in the -in the future. So, why
now? It's just the maintenance of our
current system, the need for more
efficiency, the growing need for access
to information, and really to remain
competitive with our peers. What I want
to briefly say or tell you about today is
the organizational structure for this
project, where we are, a little bit about
the staffing. Let me just quickly tell
you that we are approaching this project
in such a way as to make it not just a
technology project. I mean, certainly,
this project is going to rely heavily on
technology, but every point in this
project, we are paring the business
owners with the technology folks so that
when we come out on the other side of
this project, we have technical staff
that really understands the needs of the
end users. And we have end users
understanding what the technology can do
for you. So, we are very dedicated to
making this an end-user technology
partnership. We are going to have the
leadership teams for the three major
areas, HR, FR, and student, and then we
will have some teams that run across the
project. We'll have one team that's
working on nothing but training because
if we don't do a good job of training, we
could put the best technology in the
world, but if people don't know how to
use it, it's going to be for naught.
We'll be trying to communicate with you
on a regular basis, as regularly as we
can get on your schedule, and coming to
you in many ways to let you know what's
happening. We are - we have dedicated
space for this project. If you look at
the space that says 630 on the green
shutter there. That's actually on South
Broadway. If you look in the - in the
distance there, you see the Patterson
is an old feeder - feed store which is
not much to look at on the outside, but
it's very nice on the inside. Right now,
we occupy a third of the space. Another
third of the space is occupied by a
massage school, and the back part - and
the back part of the building is now -
is occupied by a boxing team. So, we
figure that if we get in trouble, people
can't agree, we'll send them to the
boxing ring to work it out, and if we
need to relax, we'll go to the massage
school. Actually, both of those entities
are moving out, and we'll take over the
whole building. We'll have about 50
people working full time on this project,
people from across campus, both technical
folks and people from the various areas,
the end users who will help configure
this system in such a way that it will
meet your needs. Let me just tell you
that I've already talked about the fact
that this is a partnership, and I would
want you to know that with the exception
of about three people, the staff for this
project has, actually, be selected by the
units. So that, for example, somebody
who really knows payroll was sent to work
on the project so that - and to lead
that team so that we can make sure that
we have the expertise that we need.
The - we -- we will be using
consultants. You just don't implement
one of these major systems without
consultants, but the philosophy is that
we are the prime instalator, and we will
use the implementor or the consultants,
actually, as coaches so that when we
finish this project, we will have a staff
that's fully able to maintain and to
continue to grow this system. We have
completed our software selection. We
used a contract negotiator out of
negotiations, so we had - we, actually,
had two contracts that were very, very
comparable from our -- the two vendors
that we had narrowed the selection to,
PeopleSoft and SAP. We did site visits
on the four major vendors that we had
narrowed the search to including Oracle
and SCT. You - many of you-all attended
the onsite or on-campus presentations by
PeopleSoft and SAP. The contract
negotiations went very, very well.
Actually, we negotiated for about 22
hours in one stretch, and we, actually,
wouldn't let me leave the room until we
had a contract. So that we were able to
come to the valuation team and say: We
have two contracts that are really,
really comparable. There's not much
difference between them and, so, we can
make our decision on the software based
on the user's needs. I will tell - will
tell you that the financial folks and the
HR folks really believe that either
system could work for them, but the
student - the people on the student side
felt very strongly that SAP met the needs
of the students much better. And our
clinical folks felt that the SAP was a
lot more complex and, therefore, would
meet their needs better. So, it was
really -- the decision was really based
on the needs of the student area. And,
so, I want you - I want it on record
that at least one time in the - in the
very not so distant past that academics
is really what dictated the - the
decision and, so, we did choose SAP. We
have been working on a chart of accounts
project. One of the very first things
you have to do as you configure these
systems is understand what your chart of
accounts looks like, and we've had groups
from - Matthew's led a group from all
over campus to do about 75 percent of
this work. The remaining 25 percent, we
couldn't do until we had a software
vendor. We are also trying to take a
really hard look at all of the policies
and procedures that we can. There's no
reason to wait until we're into this
project and so, oh, gee whiz, we have to
decide how we're going to do X, Y, or Z.
We're trying to identify as many of those
issues up front, get groups from across
campus together, make a decision about
those issues and move forward. For
example, one of the things, we want to
take this as an opportunity to look at is
the faculty effort system and the way we
certify faculty effort. We're one of
only five that do it the way we do it in
the whole country. So, this is the
opportunity to take a look at the way we
certify faculty effort and say: Do we do
it the way it ought to be done, or should
we change? If we decide to do it the way
we're currently doing it, that's fine,
but at least we will have had a
systematic look at that. And we have
several other projects the same way. We
will be moving away from the Social
Security Number as the major identifier
for both employees and students and, so,
we're having a group take a look at that
and make sure all our feeder systems know
about that and can be responsive to that.
They tell me then in projects like this
that decision making is the real key to
keeping these projects moving. And, so,
we're in the process of trying to develop
a decision-making model that everyone can
agree to up front so that we can,
actually, keep the project on time. We
are right now selecting an implementation
partner or partners. As I said, we will
need consultants to help us do this work,
and we have an RFP out. We hope a
decision will be made or we - no, a
decision will be made by the end of May
on that. We have a Web site. It's
really, really easy, UKY.edu/IRIS, think
of the flower. And we - we will keep
information there. I will be happy to
come back just as often as possible. I
think as we move forward, we're going to
want to look, particularly, in the
student areas at some of the Senate Rules
to see if - if they make sense in light
of configuring a new system. And, so,
I've been talking with Jeff about the
need to work with you very closely as -
when we begin to understand what some of
those decision points are. So, I'm happy
to take questions, although I'm sure I'm
out of time. I will - you can reach me
by phone or - or by e-mail. I'll be
happy to answer any questions now or at
any point in time. Yes.
HOLMES: On your organizational
chart, I didn't see anything about
faculty input for SIS. Is there any
provision?
NASH: Absolutely. We don't have any
faculty that are full time on the project
other than myself at this point, but
every one of the teams will have lots and
lots and lots of faculty end users.
Again, if we don't - if we do not manage
this system in a way that it meets
faculty needs, it meets student needs, it
meets the end user, we will have failed.
So there will be lots of opportunity for
faculty involvement.
SCOTT: I'm sorry, your name please.
HOLMES: Jim Holmes, School of
Accountancy.
CHAIR DEMBO: If I could jump in just for a
second. There have been two areas, even
at this early stage, that the IRIS group
has already identified they needed
faculty input. One is to give the
faculty the opportunity to switch to a
different payroll system if they want to,
and the other is with distribution of
effort. So, I think, that there have
been - they've been very aware of the
need for input from all constituents of
the University and as the various pieces
come - come out, that's when we're going
to be asked for input, I think.
NASH: And I should have mentioned, we
have a major steering committee with 30
people from across campus, and Jeff is
serving on that as - as one of the
faculty representatives as well. Thank
you.
CHAIR DEMBO: Thanks, Phyllis. While I'm
getting this set, a small announcement
that this afternoon Provost Nietzel's
mother passed away. We were scheduled to
have a
provost tomorrow, so that's been canceled
for all council members. And Provost
Nietzel and his family are in our
thoughts.
Next on agenda - thank you,
Phyllis. A very quick thank you to
Phyllis Nash. I worked with her for many
years, and it was truly a pleasure to see
you, first, get into the - as the Chief
of Staff in the President's office, and
in - in a short time, you did incredible
work there. And now in your role as the
IRIS director and coordinator, it's been
an incredibly wonderful transition. I
don't think there's any - sort of like
dentistry, there's nothing easy or
painless about it, but you're making it
as much as possible. We really
appreciate it, Phyllis. Thanks.
The next agenda item, in your
role as the University Senate, both the
governing regulations and the Senate
Rules state that one of the functions of
the Senate is to recommend to the
President all candidates for degrees.
Over the years, things went by the
wayside, and the voluminous list that
used to be sent out by mail to every
faculty member when the University only
had a handful of faculty, naturally, went
by the wayside. Now that we've explored
the full range of electronic
communications, there's no reason we
can't continue this, and we do this in
the fall. There was a link posted at the
University Web site, and it's a link
containing the
candidates. The Registrar gave it to us.
Cleo Price in the Registrar's office has
been working very cooperatively with us,
and I'm sure that it will get even -
done even - in an even more timely
fashion. So with that in place, it's not
quite a consent item, but I will take a
motion from the floor to approve the list
as submitted by the Registrar.
BLANDFORD: So moved.
SCOTT: Your name, please?
BLANDFORD: Blandford, Engineering.
SCOTT: Thank you.
CHAIR DEMBO: Is there a second?
YANARELLA: Second.
CHAIR DEMBO: Professor Yanarella, okay.
YANARELLA: I seconded it.
CHAIR DEMBO: Thank you. Okay, any
discussion?
AUDIENCE: (NO RESPONSE)
CHAIR DEMBO: All in favor, say aye?
AUDIENCE: Aye.
CHAIR DEMBO: All opposed? Motion
carries. Thank you very much. Okay.
Item number 5, is the proposal for the
to do here is to review with you the
routing sheet which I'm proud to say that
the
deal along with various committees
including Kay Chard's committee to try to
develop a form whereby everybody can see
that the bases have been covered and to
what degree each constituent group of the
University has agreed with or
has - has not - has disagreed with the
various proposals. This is where this
gone: Among other folks, the faculty and
Programs Committee - I'll comment on
that in just a second - the various
councils of the Senate, three out of the
four councils, the Senate committee on
Academic Organization and Structure,
Academic Council
of the
and finally, the
reason why the Academic Programs
Committee says not applicable is because
Bob Grossman, chair of that committee,
said that it wasn't appropriate for his
committee to comment on it since it did
not represent a new program, per se. But
Bob and his colleagues did have some
comments about that related to how many
units would be left in a college once
other units moved away from it, and we
may get to that question in a couple of
minutes. This was the
recommendation to forward the proposal to
the Senate with a positive
recommendation, contingent upon
administrative implementors taking into
account the items in the letter from the
Faculty Council. And Kay Chard moved,
Kennedy seconded, Jones amended. It
passed without dissent at the level of
the
track it backwards one step to what the
faculty in the
and then to have Tom Samuel be available
to give you a one-minute thumbnail sketch
of this college and why it's coming
forward, and then an opportunity to ask
questions before it comes for a vote.
So, because the
forwarded it with a positive
recommendation, it will be on the floor
for discussion, and there's no second
needed. Tom Kelly are you here? In just
a second, Tom, let me see if I accurately
portray what you wrote in your very
elegant letter on the part of the Faculty
Council in the
colleagues supported this proposal
because accreditation of this now school
and soon-to-be college will increase
educational professional opportunities.
It will enhance the environment and the
reputation of its faculty. It will
enable competition for federal funds. It
will help serve the Commonwealth more
effectively than it is as a school right
now contained within a college. And,
finally, that the faculty and students of
the
Department of Preventive Medicine and
Environmental Health do support the
proposal. So that's one aspect of the
Faculty Council from the College of
Medicine. They also had some concerns
they passed along. One is that, the
faculty remain unconvinced that no
additional resources will be required and
will result in yet another unit that is
achieving marginal success due to limited
resources, end quote. Another concern,
the status of this department was not
specified, and the salary support for
those faculty in that department should
require careful attention. The third was
more of a global concern. The potential
impact of a new college at a time when
there's decreasing resources, increasing
tuition, and diminishing morale among
student, staff and faculty. And,
finally, the college Council felt that
the support may not have been well
documented despite the assurance by
representatives who put the proposal
forward.
Tom, other comments you'd like
to make about the
the Faculty Council's comments on this
proposal?
KELLY: No. Thank you, Jeff. That was
well done.
CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. So, at this time, Tom
Samuel has been the primary spokesperson
for this proposal. Tom, do you have any
comments? A one-minute overview as to
why and - why this is coming forward?
SAMUEL: I think we all know the status
of health in
down there. We, obviously, need to find
a way to work with the state. We're
lucky to have a Governor right now who's
a physician willing to move forward with
some activities in terms of public
health. There's a Council of
Post-secondary education plan going
forward on public health that will move
public health, I think, to a priority in
terms of funding at the state level,
whatever that might be. We feel for the
advantage of that, it is essential that
we go to college status. Now college
status, the reason for that, is that we
need to have an organizational structure
at the
permits the dean or the chief academic
officer of that particular organization
to be equivalent to other deans at the
forward with accreditation.
Accreditation is important in that it's
important for our students in terms of
practicum placement. It's important to
the college in that we are eligible for
certain funding that is only specified
for accredited colleges of public health.
We feel this is the time to do it in
terms of the events after 9/11 and all
the federal funding, the kinds of
emphasis that's on public health, and,
particularly, the status of public health
in
to move forward. And we have adequately
laid out the 31 different groups have, in
fact, endorsed our move to go to a
college, and we bring it to you and hope
you will favorably consider the college
status of the
CHAIR DEMBO: So before I open the floor to
discussion, I want to know, first, are
there any questions about the details of
this proposal that somebody needs some
more information on?
AUDIENCE: (NO RESPONSE)
CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. Is there anybody who
wants the floor to speak either in favor
or against the proposal?
GOVINDARAJULU: I would like to --
CHAIR DEMBO: Professor Govindarajulu.
GOVINDARAJULU: I would like to have - express
some concerns. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry, I
have a soft voice, but I would like to
express some concerns I have about the
creation of this college and one is
several rationale has been given, and
some of them are on shaky grounds. For
example, the health of the State of
this Health Science plan is created.
Number two,
nation as the college is created. Number
three is faculty, the morale of the -
the quality of the faculty, the quality
of the students who come up will go up as
soon as the college is created. Faculty
and the students go when there is
program. They go - they are program
oriented. They go with the quality of
program rather than college abiliy. And
somebody mentioned about accreditation
which I don't understand. That might be
compelling reason. I - I - you know,
I don't mind hearing some arguments from
Dr. Samuel on that. The main concern is
it is taught as cost effective. Cost -
sorry. Cost neutral. Whenever there's
- a college is created and there's a new
dean, there's a new - two associate
deans on the physical assistant and
supporting staff and some lines have been
transferred and so on, they are
cost - they do cost. So I was just
wondering at this time of the year, at
this time at
paperclips and pencils at the rest of the
campus, is it wise to put this college
through? What kind of a message we are
sending to
Number two is, the duplication. Has it
been mentioned in the document there's a
duplication, the Martin School of Public
Administration, there's already a
program? There is a program in Eastern
and the cost had secondary education.
Which a little bit of concern about this
duplication has, you know, thought has
been given to what duplication. First of
all, duplication, then put up new
proposals. Don't create a college first,
and then turn to look at the duplication.
It's too late. The major concern is
about the creation of Department of
Biostatistics. And we have a statistics
department for the last 37 years at the
functioned very well. We have served the
state very well. And the University of
other department there duplication of --
So we have
served the state as --
well, and there is also a Department of
Biostatistics at
currently for the last two years it has
been in existence. And they do at UL, I
was told, a Petry Program (PHONETICALLY).
So we have been functioning very well.
We have a Biostatistics option for
students who want to go in Biostatistics.
So at this - we - we have already a
Division of Biostatistics now. Why do
you want to create a Department of
Biostatistics, and this aspect has never
been discussed adequately or, period, not
discussed at all in our department. And
it has a devastating effect on the
Department of Statistics. And number
three is, in the original document, there
are four lines. We are being
transferred -- is being transferred as
soon as the college is created from Stat
department. So this -- constitutes 40
percent of whole department, in fact. So
if this ranks go, we have to adequately
fund it to replace this. In the first
place, we've created this Biostatistics
because of the base of need to take care
of the immediate needs and people retired
or died - they can -- Biostatistics. So
if these people go, we need adequate
funding to replace those links. Even
this aspect we have not discussed in our
department. So, my main concern is
creation - concerns of the creation of
the Biostatistics Department. Thank you
for your attention.
SAMUEL: I'll let Davy talk to the
budget -- well, let me talk about
biostatistics first of all. First, we
have talked with the Dean and we've
talked with the Chair of Statistics.
Those positions currently are 50 percent
funded by the College - or the School of
Public Health, and 50 percent by the
Department of Statistics. They will
remain exactly that, 50/50. However,
their primary appointment is being moved
from the College of Arts and Sciences
into the
that is essential for us in order to
achieve accreditation. Those assignments
were made exactly the same after they are
transferred as what they were before.
Dick Kryscio will remain the chairman of
the department. We intend to work very
closely with the Department of Statistics
in all that we do. In fact, when we
started the process, it was that we were
not going to go into competition with the
Department of Statistics. We were going
to work with them, and we worked with
Connie throughout. We've worked with the
Dean throughout in order to make sure
that's the case. If either of them are
here, they can speak to that. But, I
mean, we have gone out of our way in
those letters of appointment to those
four faculty members that will be
transferred, their primary appointment,
but they'll still be 50/50, but their
primary appointment will be in the School
of Public Health. That's the appointment
letter they signed when they came. In
other words, they - it said that once we
become a college, they - if that
happened, they would be transferred to
the college as their primary appointment.
So I don't think there's any change in
terms of their status. I will say that
Steve Wyatt on our faculty and somebody
who's on - that happens to be on the
advisory board at the University of
in - just in the
there are 15 biostatisticians. We have 5
at the
the
going to go forward, if we're going to
move to try to achieve anything like
top-20 status, it's going to take a lot
more biostatisticians, and I think the
Dean - at least he made the statement to
me, and I assume that I can make it
again, has stated that the only way
that's going to happen is through the
kind of process we're talking about of
having a primary appointment in a College
of Public Health and a full development
of a Department of Biostatistics within
the
it will be with the intention of total
cooperation and integration with
statistics. We do not intend to do
something. We've been working with your
Chair, trying to find a way to fund a
bioinformatics position that would allow
us to work more closely with the
Department of Statistics. So, I think,
it's the reverse. I, actually, think
that staff will be better off if there's
a college and the formation of a
department in
the
Health.
CHAIR DEMBO: Thank you, Tom.
KRYSCIO: Dick, you're here. Do you want
to speak to that at all? I see Dick
Kryscio back there.
CRISEO: I just want to clarify, we have
no intentions whatsoever to offer Ph.D.
in Biostatistics. I think that --
decided to do that not developing a
professional program which is, you know,
precisely what we want. And as a full
professor in the Department of
Statistics, we worked very hard to put a
track in our Ph.D. program so that there
would be a Ph.D. degree in statistics
with a concentration in biostatistics
rather than, okay, like
doing and certainly the school of public
health as, as far as I know, in all of
the years that I've worked with them that
has never discussed having a Ph.D. in
biostatistics. So, strictly a
professional program.
CHAIR DEMBO: Thanks, Professor Criseo.
Professor Tagavi.
TAGAVI: I heard you saying that four
lines are going to go from statistics,
the primarily appointment.
SAMUEL: Uh-huh (AFFIRMATIVE).
TAGAVI: You mentioned you consulted or
you formed a Chair of the Statistics
Department. Have you consulted - gone
out -- have you gone out of your way to
talk to the faculty of the Statistics?
SAMUEL: I believe - I -- I did
note - I mean, I - I will say that
Dick Criseo who is a member of the
faculty and has been part of all --
TAGAVI: Faculty of what?
SAMUEL: Of Stat.
TAGAVI: Of Statistics?
SAMUEL: Statistics.
TAGAVI: So, we established one person
has been consulted.
CHAIR DEMBO: If I could intervene for a
second --
TAGAVI: The faculty of the Statistics
being consulted.
SAMUEL: I didn't. I think that what
we've done is
talked with the Chair and with the Dean
and whatever their processes are, the
appointments to begin with were in the
Department of Statistics at 50 percent
and 50 percent
of the
Health primarily in statistics, and now
that's been moved to primary and will be
moved to primary and biostatistics. In
terms of consultation, you're going to
have to ask the Dean. I did not feel
that was the responsibility of the School
of Public Health.
TAGAVI: It seems the faculty has not
been consulted.
SAMUEL: Well, I --
TAGAVI: I just want to make that --
CHAIR DEMBO: Point of clarification, one of
the tabs in the packet was a letter
signed by Connie Wood. And as Department
Chair, one would assume that she would
speak on behalf of the faculty. You can
only go so far, I think, to - to try to
query every single faculty, and you have
to start trusting a little bit. If
Dr. Wood does not represent the faculty's
interest, that's an inter-departmental
problem, I think.
CHAIR DEMBO: Professor Grossman.
GROSSMAN: Bob Grossman, Chemistry. I -
I do support this proposal and I agree
with some of the concerns that previous
speaker mentioned, but one thing that
Dr. Samuel's alluded to which some people
may not understand completely is the
accrediting agencies have us over a
barrel. I didn't understand this until
the last year when this happened again
and again. But without having a separate
Dean, the
health programs cannot be accredited. If
they are not accredited, the graduates
cannot get many kinds of jobs, and the
faculty in the units cannot get large -
do not have access to large pools of
funding. So when he says that
financially this makes sense, part of
what he's referring to is the opportunity
to go out and find large pools of
funding. As for you concerns about
overlap and touching other areas in other
colleges, I think this is the nature of
research today that there is - no - no
college is an island anymore. And
there - and any college going to have
programs that intercept the interests of
departments in other colleges. For
example, in chemistry we started up a
program, an undergraduate option in
biological chemistry, and our College in
the Biochemistry Department in the
what we were planning to do to make sure
that there wasn't friction between the
two departments over this new program.
It's just the nature of interdisciplinary
research, and it's always going to
happen. There is a memorandum of
understanding between the College of
Public Health
and the
that specifically address many of the
concerns that were raised by the Martin
School about the overlap between their
programs in public policy and the public
health schools' programs in public -
wasn't it public health administration;
is that right?
SAMUEL: Right. Right. Correct.
GROSSMAN: And - and that - that is
supposed to help address some of those
concerns. So --
SAMUEL: Let me just comment on the
been - I've worked very hard on that, as
have Dave and -- and Gina and a number of
others. And I feel very good about where
we are. One of the concerns is that they
have a very strong public policy bent in
the
somehow unjustly invade that through the
gone to them. We have a course this fall
that will be Public Health Policy and
Politics. Before that course was
offered, before we put that on the books,
we went to the
want to make sure that somehow we're not
competing or offering a course that's
going to cause a problem. And we were
told it was not a problem. And we have
pledged we will do that every time out of
the box. We are not here - public
health is interdisciplinary. Let me just
give you an example. We have a young
professor we just recruited from UC-
Davis, outstanding environmentalist in
aerosol science, it turns out. That
person has gone together with people in
the
submitted a grant, an upscore grant
which, I'm not sure whether it will get
funded, but people in Engineering seem to
feel very good about it. They could not
have submitted that grant without his
expertise, but the grant's going to be in
Engineering not
in the
Health. It's going to be there because
that's where most of the effort or most
of the equipment, et cetera, is going to
be located. It's a two million dollar
proposal, and quite frankly, only about
150,000 is up in the
Health. That's the net addition that I
really believe will come from the College
of Public Health. If we can be - if we
can become that administrative unit that
is accredited, that has access, then we
can allows others to also have access to
funds that we're currently - we don't
have access to, and I really believe
that's going to happen.
CHAIR DEMBO: We're 11 minutes behind
schedule. Anybody who's not spoken yet?
CHAIR DEMBO: Please introduce yourself.
of the DR PH Students currently in the
Public Health program. I probably would
not sleep well if I hadn't been able to
stand up and - stand and - for the
benefit of the program. I was attracted
to the program because of all the health
disparity. I've seen a great deal of
issues working in my community in West
program back in 2001. I believe that
currently I've been involved in the
various subcommittees, the committees to
help move this program along because I
feel as though this is a very important
addition to this University because, one,
it's not duplicating, per se. I believe
it's more trans-disciplinary, trying to
bring things together. We do have
reactionary medicine, but we're looking
at prevention. We're looking at
intervention. We do have problems here
in
I believe that this - there's - I
believe that you can't go wrong if you
support it. I mean, there's nothing that
will threaten any other department, in my
opinion. I don't know exactly what the
concerns are, but I just - as a student,
I wanted to let you know that we're 100
percent trying to support the endeavors
and trying to move it from the school to
the college. And we even had a student
focus group to actually be right in the
mix of trying to develop this particular
Public Health. So, if you have any
questions of the students, I'm not
representing all the students, but as a
student if you have any questions, please
don't hesitate to ask.
CHAIR DEMBO: That's for coming and for your
comments. We appreciate it. Any other
discussion?
GOVINDARAJULU: Can I ask one clarification?
CHAIR DEMBO: Clarification.
GOVINDARAJULU: In my hand, I have a copy of a
letter we took to you to a -. And it is
signed by our Chair, Constance Wood,
Thomas Samuel and David White. And this
letter makes a correction that not all
four of them will go to - in case there
is a
CHAIR DEMBO: So not all four statistics
faculty?
GAVENDORAJALU: Yes.
SAMUEL: All four - all four that have
been hired as joint appointments will be
transferred to
the
Health.
CHAIR DEMBO: Raju, will this make a
difference in the way you vote?
GOVINDARAJULU: This is - no, this is - if
you want -- to you -- to you and signed
by Dr. Samuel, Dr. White. If you want I
could read this paragraph.
CHAIR DEMBO: Is the point one that will make
a difference in the way you vote on the
proposal?
GOVINDARAJULU: It says here that it was
agreed - the agreed upon modified
language, it was agreed that some of the
faculty who have these funded positions
will transport as primary ornaments in
the
tradition is sought for the College of
Public Health.
CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. Another question, a
comment?
Medicine, trained as an academic
biostatistician. There seems to be a
great deal of concern here to me that
what - what the faculty are about to do
would hurt the Department of Statistics,
in particular, and I would be sensitive
to that concern, but I think there's a
clear precedent for the fact that you can
look across the country and what comes to
mind are programs like the University of
where in those particular institutes,
there's wonderful coexistence of a - an
independent stat department as well as an
independent biostatistics department.
And although those function
independently, and that's critical to get
this accreditation issue resolved, they
coexist together and they really
complement one another very well. And I
think we have a unique opportunity to do
that for the
State of
here at the
I - I certainly would like to speak for
this proposal very strongly in that
regard. I -- I keep hearing an issue
regarding statistics versus
biostatistics, and even though I'm
sensitive to that, I think they have a
wonderful opportunity to coexist very
nicely here on this campus.
CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. Is there any other
discussion from somebody who's not spoken
on a point other than that related to
statistics. Steve.
YATES: Steve Yates, Chemistry, not
Statistics. I - I see, once again,
where establishing a small college with
the rationale being that accreditation
plays a major role. Small colleges, by
their nature, are somewhat inefficient.
We have another college on campus, Arts
and Sciences, that's ten times its size.
Medicine, it's huge compared to this.
So, I think the message is that if you
really want to have success in getting
your own program, then History should get
an accredited program, and then they can
have their own college. I really
don't - I really hate to see this as a
driving issue behind any of these things.
CHAIR DEMBO: Anyone from History want to
rebut that point?
(AUDIENCE LAUGHS)
CHAIR DEMBO: I think I hear the discussion
winding down. We're 17 minutes overtime,
but I hope there's no objection to
bringing this to a vote now. So you've
heard about the College of Public Health
proposal positive recommendation from the
please raise your hands.
(SENATE VOTES)
CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. All voting members who
are opposed to it, please raise your
hands.
(SENATE VOTES)
CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. All but one. Any
abstentions. Thank you very much. I'm
going to skip order here for a second
because Dean Waldhart from the College of
Engineering is here. He has a limited
amount of time with us. So, I want to
skip ahead to item, I guess it's labeled
7, the Center for Visualization and
Virtual Environments. Tom, thank you
very much.
WALDHART: Thank you very much. Thank you
to the Senate also.
CHAIR DEMBO: John, take care. Okay, Bruce,
I just want to introduce what the College
of Engineering submitted as its
description for what this Center does.
Visualization is depiction of
computer-generated data of scientific or
engineering processes and rendering
virtual environments or recreation of
remote real environments. The proposed
Center will congeal and further basic
research. It's going to be housed in the
KU building. The initial funding comes
from a grant from the Office of the New
Economy versus the Kentucky Economic
Development Finance Authority with
sustained funding based on extramural
funding that the faculty would obtain and
the indirect cost savings. And the core
research faculty in this proposal have
been identified primarily from the
College of Engineering, some of the
departments there with allied faculty in
other colleges across campus. The
routing sheet for this has taken it
through the faculty in Engineering
through Dr. Chart and her Senate
committee on Academic Organization and
Structure and
through the
where it comes to you - to the floor
with a positive recommendation from the
other questions about the substance or
nature of this proposal? Okay. Is there
any discussion about the proposal itself.
It's on the floor because it came from
the
STABEN: May I ask a question, by the
way? What is meant by --
CHAIR DEMBO: Please identify yourself.
STABEN: Oh, I'm sorry, Chuck Staben
from Biology. What is meant by being
funded by indirect cost savings by virtue
of this being off-site?
CHAIR DEMBO: Dean Waldhart.
WALDHART: Yeah, Chuck, eventually,
what we hope, we have extramural funding
on the order of about $5 million in
addition to the seed funding that we've
gotten right now. We're taking that
through the traditional indirect models.
We're not doing anything to obfuscate
that. But, eventually, we're going to
knock on Wendy Baldwin's door and say:
Look, we're creating a Center here.
We're creating infrastructure that will
enable other faculty, not just in
electrical and computer science, but
other faculty around the University to
apply for and to possibly get grants at a
much higher level. We would like to see
some of that indirect cost come back to
the Senate. And there are precedents out
there for this model right now. We want
to prove our merit first before we
actually knock on Wendy Baldwin's door.
If you look at it in the proposal, if you
have that in front of you, there's a
graph of milestones to sustain funding,
and you will see a small sliver of that
actually proposed as indirect cost coming
in 2007-2008 like time frame. And I
think, Chuck, in this current
environment, you need to think
creatively. You're not going to see a
lot of resources granted to Centers like
our proposal coming from dais Macanus
(PHONETICALLY) type places. You have to
think, you know, what's the benefit to
the University as a whole and can people
like Vice President Baldwin then justify
changes in indirect cost structure to
support that?
CHAIR DEMBO: Other discussion? Hearing
none, bring it to a vote. The proposal
is to approve the Center for
Visualization and Virtual Environments.
All in favor, please raise your hands.
(SENATE VOTES)
CHAIR DEMBO: Thank you. Any opposed? Any
abstentions? Thank you, Bruce. Okay.
The next order of business is to resume
where we left off with material that's
come from the Senate Rules and Elections
Committee. Over the course of the year,
Professor Tagavi and his committee has
taken a look at a number of things, some
of which they were charged to do and some
of which came up in the -- in the course
of business with the Senate. The first
is the definition of a family. This
question originated from the academic
ombud office. David, I saw you here.
David, in a 30-second overview, why did
this question come forward?
DAVID: A student came to our office in
the fall. She was in a partnership with
another woman, another student. That
student's grandmother was dying, was in a
hospital. The student who approached our
office wanted to know from the instructor
if she could have an excused absence to
go to the hospital and later on to the
funeral. The instructor said, no,
because a grandmother is not immediate
family, and you are not immediate family.
So those two issues, we felt like, needed
clarification, and referred it to the
Rules Committee.
CHAIR DEMBO: So, Professor Tagavi, tell us
about -- how this definition arose.
TAGAVI: I think that we - we
approached this in two different ways.
One was the immediate rule
interpretation. And it's so long ago
that I might be somewhat sketchy.
(AUDIENCE LAUGHS)
TAGAVI: The interpretation was, as much
as we would have liked to be included,
that grandparents were not immediate
family. And on the domestic partner, if
I'm not mistaken, we ruled that it
doesn't include the interpretation. But
upon the request of the ombud or the
implied request of the ombud, we came up
with a new rule that redefined the
definition of immediate family to include
grandchildren and grandparents and
include people like domestic partnerships
and a roommate of a student. We thought
there's no sense if a roommate of a
student has died, to force the student to
have a quiz when they are not ready to
take that. So, we - we added language
that would include roommate, some
students, and grandparents and domestic
partnership.
CHAIR DEMBO: So, let's back up for a second.
So, the significant changes here are what
are in yellow. Significant illness of
the student and a member of the student's
household, and the same in B. And then
finally, at the end of this rule, there's
already one interpretation that was done
in 1994, and now a second interpretation
that will be listed on there as well as
who is the immediate family. Just
recently the
discussion with Greg Moore who's the
director of the University Health
Service, and faculty will be receiving a
broadcast e-mail, reaffirming that in the
end, excused absences are a matter
between the student and the faculty for
mutual negotiation and for a matter of
working out whatever differences there
are, but - so there's always going to be
exceptions and, well, what if this, what
if that, but on the other hand, it was
time to look at some basic wording and
see if the guidelines needed to be
changed. So that came forward from the
Rules Committee and went to the Senate
Council with a positive recommendation.
TAGAVI: May I quickly add that this is
not per se interpretation. This is a new
rule.
CHAIR DEMBO: Yes. I'm sorry. What I meant
to say was that in addition to the
previous interpretation, an additional -
an addition to the rule is - is added.
So, this represents a proposed change in
the Senate Rule. Questions? Professor
Grossman.
GROSSMAN: Who is going to define
significant and serious in part A?
CHAIR DEMBO: A quick answer to this is not
going to the University Health Service.
(AUDIENCE LAUGHS)
CHAIR DEMBO: Because they are no longer
going to give out forms stating that the
student had a - had an appointment
there. So, again, it gets back to the
trust and the relationship between the
student and the faculty. Professor
Peffer.
PEFFER: Sean Peffer, School of
Business. Two things, one, the
household - well, one, probably, first,
so if this goes in, does this then mean
that if a student comes to me as a
professor and says: I can miss that. I
don't care what your rules say; I can
miss that because this says so. Is
that - does this override? Because
you're turning around and saying it's
between the professor and the student,
but at the same time, if they take me to
the ombud, will I lose because this rule
says it? That's thing A. Thing B,
household, how does that work with frats
and sororities? Anybody in the sorority
is sick, the whole sorority gets to miss.
Household is a dangerous work, so how
does that work?
CHAIR DEMBO: So let's take question one to
Professor Royse.
ROYSE: Yes.
(AUDIENCE LAUGHS)
ROYSE: How would you respond, Jeff?
CHAIR DEMBO: Well, in the end if there is --
if there's a contest that somebody feels
their academic rules - rights have been
violated, they can always go to the
Appeals Board. The Appeals Board will
make the final determination, and if it
affected the grade, the Appeals Board can
make any one grade into any other grade.
PEFFER: Yeah. What I'm wondering that
since this is written down, you know,
they could pull it out of their pocket
and say: Hey, look, you know, here it
is. You lose. Because I do, I do lose,
that's written down and you've given this
to them, and it's kind of like a
contract. So that's part A that worries
me. And I haven't heard that said no to
in here. Okay. How about if that - if
that is the answer to part - I know
you've got a --
TAGAVI: Part A, can I answer that?
PEFFER: Yeah.
TAGAVI: With regard to these, the only
new stuff is the yellow stuff. So we are
not changing that. It was already
written that if there is a serious
illness of a member of student's
immediate family, you lose.
PEFFER: That's fine.
TAGAVI: That has not changed.
PEFFER: Household.
TAGAVI: Okay. So we answered your
first one, your first concern.
PEFFER: Yeah - well, no, you didn't
answer the first concern. You told me
that if somebody had something, and it's
anybody in their entire fraternity, I do
lose.
TAGAVI: No, that's the second - that
was your second point. Your first point
was this is not written. The students
would show it to you and say: I don't
care what you say, you lose. Yes,
professors lose when they want to insist
after the death of a family a student
should take the test.
PEFFER: No. No. No. Okay. No. No.
No.
TAGAVI: The authority --
PEFFER: I'm not saying that the family.
I'm not saying - don't - don't put me
in a box like that. I'm not saying death
of a family member. I'm not going to
have a guy come: Oh, my dad died. Will
you excuse me? Me say, no. All I asked
was if this is written, the way it is up
there with the yellow, the way it is
proposed, then if they come to me and
they say: I have a fraternity member or
somebody in my house because there's 32
people that live in my house, and they
are ill, I get out of it. Your answer to
me then, I want to get this straight is,
yes.
TAGAVI: No, I haven't said that.
SPEAKER: I'd say probably you would
lose.
PEFFER: Okay, that's - that's the
answer.
CHAIR DEMBO: Professor Chard.
CHARD: Kay Chard, Education. But,
wait, you missed
the part that
said at the beginning about the change in
student health. Students now - you can
ask for verification, as you always
could. No more do you get those little
green slips handed to you. They actually
have to go. That means you're going to
have to have a student in a fraternity, a
sorority, go and get a doctor's statement
of what was actually wrong with them, be
willing to release that, according to
HIPPA, give that to their buddy in the
fraternity, sorority to give to you.
You're not going to get a lot of that.
So, I really don't think the situation of
one person getting 30 doctor's excuses,
photocopying them with HIPPA issues and
giving them to you to get out of a test
is going to happen. This change in
student health is going to make a
difference for us.
CHAIR DEMBO: Other comments, discussion?
SPEAKER: Can I -- can I clarify? I'm
a member of the group community, and I
just want to tell you we took a
philosophical - sorry - we took a
philosophical approach on the definition
of family, a broad approach, because
what's the point of lecturing to some
student whose heart is somewhere but
physically his body is in - in -- in the
classroom? So we took a very broad
definition of family, and that's how we
came up with. Okay? That's the
rationale of this. Thank you.
CHAIR DEMBO: Thank you. Other comments?
Professor Grossman.
GROSSMAN: I would like to propose an
amendment --
CHAIR DEMBO: Yes, sir.
GROSSMAN: - to A. I would like to -
I'm not absolutely sure of the wording of
the amendment at this point. But there
needs to be something in here to say that
the instructor's decision is final. The
instructor shall decide definitions --
CHARD: No, it's not.
GROSSMAN: This is my amendment. This is
my amendment. The instructor shall
decide whether an illness is significant
and whether a person is truly a member of
the student's household as defined - as
intended by this amendment.
CHAIR DEMBO: So the wording would be
something like: The instructor will have
final right of interpretation of this
rule?
GROSSMAN: Yes.
CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. Is there - hang on. We
have to have a second before this
discussion. Does anybody second
Professor Grossman's amendment? The
amendment fails. Other discussion on the
original proposal? Okay. I think we'll
bring it to a vote. All in favor of the
amendments, the change of the Senate
Rules as listed, please raise your hand.
(SENATE VOTES)
CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. All opposed?
(SENATE VOTES)
CHAIR DEMBO: Michelle, could we get a count
of those opposed, please?
SOHNER: 15.
CHAIR DEMBO: 15 opposed. Any abstentions?
(SENATE VOTES)
CHAIR DEMBO: One abstention. Thank you very
much. The motion passes. Item 6B,
Professor Tagavi and Dean Blackwell from
the Graduate School mutually decided, I
believe, it was time to revise and to
revisit the composition of the Graduate
Council, and I think through a very
thorough and painstaking process, the two
worked together along with the Graduate
Council to come up with changes that
seemed logical and seemed to reflect
the - the current makeup of the
University. So, the print that's in red
is what was deleted and everything in
yellow was added. Kaveh, can you give
like a ten-second overview as to what the
major changes were here?
TAGAVI: It'S -- changes but the only
difference is the total number of 14 that
used to be proportioned in a - in a way
is now proportioned in a different way.
The biggest change is College of Pharmacy
used to be with College of Medicine.
Pharmacy being a very small college and
Medicine a very big college, now all of
it has been reshuffled and bunch
modified. No other changes have been
made.
CHAIR DEMBO: So, by way of interpretation,
before it used to be two members of the
Graduate Council had to be from the
Colleges of Pharmacy, Dentistry, Health
Sciences and Nursing, correct? Dean
Blackwell.
BLACKWELL: Yeah. If I could just add to
that. We needed to incorporate the new
College of Design into our structure and
also to take into account the - the
movement of parts and Human Environmental
Sciences to other places in the
University. And, of course, if the
College of Public Health comes about,
we'll be back next year with another
proposal to incorporate them into the
election structure.
CHAIR DEMBO: And very wisely, they've
included one final paragraph to state
that it doesn't have to come back to the
Senate every year because the composition
will be reexamined by the Graduate
Council, so this should be the last time
we'll have to take a look at it. Any
discussion? Okay. All in favor of these
amended rules for Graduate Council?
(SENATE VOTES)
CHAIR DEMBO: Any opposed? Any abstentions.
Thank you. Passes.
Item C, the ten-day rule states
that all agenda items for the University
Senate have to be promulgated to Senators
and all academic departments ten days
before the actual Senate meeting. With
this administration, with the speed of
electronic communication, things happen
very quickly, and sometimes there have
been proposals that have come to the
before a Senate meeting. And thereby, we
have to defer that under the current
Rules until the following Senate meeting
or we have to ask the Senate to waive the
ten-day rule. So, a proposal came up
with the idea that now that we can post
everything on the Web site and with the
ease of electronic communication, would
it make sense to ask the Senate if it was
acceptable to circulate by e-mail and by
Web posting an agenda six days prior.
What that would do is it would permit
something acted on, for instance, at last
Monday's
immediately get posted onto today's
Senate meeting without having to ask the
Senate to waive the ten-day rule. And
it's with some trepidation that we ask
the Senate to waive the ten-day rule
because it's asking you to - to take a
leap of faith about something that could
potentially be controversial or may not
be. This could eliminate the need to do
that. Questions? Professor Yates.
YATES: Yeah. In our college, we've
had some discussion about the ten-day
rule whether that's really a two-week
rule, meaning is this six calendar days
or working days. If it's six calendar
days, I suggest adding the word
"calendar."
CHAIR DEMBO: It was meant to be six calendar
days. So, we consider that a friendly
amendment then?
YATES: Yes.
CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. Thank you. Other
comments? This is something that -
could you live with it? Okay. All in
favor?
(SENATE VOTES)
CHAIR DEMBO: Any opposed?
(SENATE VOTES)
CHAIR DEMBO: One opposed. Any abstentions?
Thank you. Okay, finally, modifications
for the ombud search, in Senate Rule
6.2.3, there's a variety of descriptions
of what needs to be - to be done to
constitute a search for the academic
ombud. It involves a committee that's -
that reports to the provost
representative of the academic community.
And the only recent change to this Rule
was when LCC joined us back in 97 that we
had two ombuds instead of one University
ombud. The proposed change is that the
existing Rule is unclear as to what
happens if the incumbent ombud chooses to
serve again. Does one have to constitute
and whole search committee and have
people take time from their already busy
schedules to sit down and meet and talk
about it? And, so, we had some
discussion about it with the Senate
Council. We came up with this proposal
that either of the ombuds may be
reappointed to a second term without,
essentially, constituting a whole search
committee if three parties agree to it,
the affected ombud, the Provost, and the
agreement by any one of those, then, of
course, the usual search committee would
be constituted. And there was some
concern brought up about ombuds who tend
to serve multiple terms that if you went
on for a third or fourth term without the
oversight of the search committee, you
might lose the fact that, maybe, there's
somebody very well qualified waiting to
come in, or, maybe, the person in the
position is no longer serving the
University very effectively. Hence, the
wording that if it should go for a third
term, that the usual search would apply.
Any questions, comments, discussion?
MARCHANT: Mary Marchant, Ag Economics.
How long is the term?
CHAIR DEMBO: It's a year-to-year
appointment, and most ombuds have served
one or two years. Professor Edgerton
served three years. I served four years.
Professor Royse is at the end of his
first term right now. Other questions,
discussion?
BAILEY: Ernie Bailey, Veterinary
Science. When -- when we discussed it in
the
reappointment beyond the second term?
What happens if someone goes to a fourth
term? Isn't - doesn't this - worry to
leave that open?
CHAIR DEMBO: I'm not sure, remind me. Kaveh.
TAGAVI: No. We - the Rules Committee
was not asked to comment on this, but it
didn't stop us.
(AUDIENCE LAUGHS)
TAGAVI: And we said that, perhaps, a
third-year - a third-year appointment
should not be done. So two years and
then that's it. But the
Chair preferred that this should be done
at a different time, getting input from
the cabinets. So, no, we did not act on
that. We -- we brought it up, but we did
not act on it.
CHARD:
subsequent. Reappointment to a third or
subsequent term should go through the
normal search process.
CHAIR DEMBO: So, we're missing a word
there.
CHARD: In council, yes.
CHAIR DEMBO: A third or subsequent?
CHARD: Yes.
CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. So, that will be a
typographical error. We're not amending
anything. We're just making sure the
right wording gets in there.
TAGAVI: So we can change that then.
CHARD: Right.
CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. Rebecca, you have
that?
SCOTT: Got it.
CHAIR DEMBO: Marla? Okay, thank you.
Any other comments, questions? Okay.
All in favor, please raise your hands?
(SENATE VOTES)
CHAIR DEMBO: Any opposed? Any abstentions.
Okay. Thank you. I'd like to beg your
indulgence here. We have four items from
four different colleges, whereby, the
colleges want to change some of their
academic process or procedure. One
involves promotion, another involves
admission. All of these have been
through each college. They've been
through the - through Wally Ferrier and
the Senate Committee on Admissions and
Academic Standards. I don't think
there's anything wrong with bundling
these together, and I'd like to - I'll
open it up for any questions about any of
them. I would like to compliment Wally.
Unfortunately, he couldn't be here. He
had a family commitment. He spent time
with each of the deans from each of the
colleges. And, in fact, in the case of
Pharmacy, worked very closely with Bill
Lubawy to tweak a little bit of the
wording that made it -- ended up making
it more clear, I think. And Bill and his
colleagues were very - very willing to
do that. I do want to point out one
other. So, this is Pharmacy and it's in
your packet. Medicine, there was one
very minor change that I spoke about with
Darryl Jennings, Dean in the College of
Medicine, that in this college now step
two of the Licensing Exam has a clinical
portion, and in the current wording it
said: Students have three attempts to
pass before dismissal with appeals. And
it wasn't quite clear whether they had
three attempts to pass the two parts
together, or if they had a three attempts
to pass one of the parts and three
attempts to pass the other part. And,
Darryl, when I spoke to you, you said
that it would be more accurate to add
those words to pass each part. So, in
other words, total, they could try up to
six times to pass each of those two -
two parts. So, with - this didn't come
out of Wally's committee, but with your
permission, I'd like to recommend that
that gets added in there. Nursing
graduation requirement, they're adding -
proposing to add one more phrase. And in
the College of Communication Information
Studies, they're changing their admission
deadlines. Instead of having two
acceptances, two admission dates, they
want to have one admission dates, and
they have some other things allowing
students to waive requirements and what
the admission procedure is. All of these
came out of the
positive recommendation. And before I
put it on the floor as a bundle, I'd like
to see if there's any particular
questions or if any members of these
colleges have a comment they want to
make. Professor Blandford.
BLANDFORD: Blandford, Engineering. I have
one question. It says that on this
Pharmacy one: May be placed on probation
or may be suspended. It seems to me like
that's a little bit vague. Can't - they
should have made up their mind whether it
should have been suspension or probation.
It seems like it's left up to the Dean or
somebody to make that determination.
CHAIR DEMBO: Dean Lubawy.
LUBAWY: Just depends on how severely
the grades were or what was going on,
whether the students - when the faculty
felt the student had some redeeming
social value.
(AUDIENCE LAUGHS)
LUBAWY: And, yes, they are terribly
subjective judgments. But we figured
that was prerogative of the faculty. The
committee is made up of the faculty, who
teach the students in that semester.
We've had situations where students have
reasonable backgrounds, just kind of mix.
Some students had all Cs but they're high
Cs. Some students have all Cs but
they're right next to a D. And, so, the
faculty sit down and look at how well
that student performed, what's going on,
what their chances are of doing things,
and they make a decision. And they
wanted that particular judgment to rest
with them.
CHAIR DEMBO: In the professional college in
the Medical Center, there's some very
active academic performance committees
that track each student very closely and
individually. So there is the ability to
look at the student's individual
progress. Other questions? Professor
Tagavi.
TAGAVI: On page 14 of the handout, the
last line.
CHAIR DEMBO: Which one is that?
TAGAVI: The handout that was given to
the - page 14. The last line, I think,
Professor Lubawy confirmed - we
discussed that dismissal should be
dropped at the
decided that it should be dropped. So,
I'd like you to remind us again.
CHAIR DEMBO: Which phrase is it? I'm sorry.
TAGAVI: Page 14, last line.
CHAIR DEMBO: Thanks. 14, last line.
TAGAVI: The word "dismissal". There is
no dismissal at the University of
Kentucky for academic performance. There
is twice suspension.
CHAIR DEMBO: Is it correct - I think,
Kaveh, that you commented on it. I don't
think that we actually --
TAGAVI: No, he - Dr. Lubawy agreed.
It was my understanding that we dropped
it.
CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. You okay with that,
Bill? Okay. So, first, is there any
objection to lumping these together?
Okay. So we have before you four
different action items from the Committee
on Admissions and Academic Standards from
Wally Ferrier. All in favor, please
raise your hands.
(SENATE VOTES)
CHAIR DEMBO: All opposed? Any abstentions?
Thank you very much. We are now only
five minutes over schedule. I'm going
to - I'd still love at the end of all of
this a couple of minutes just to talk
with the Senate, but the most pressing
issue right now is our Senate business of
talking about the USP Oral Communication
requirement. I need to give you some
background on this. This first came
before the University Senate as a
discussion only item, December 9, 2002.
The formal proposal from the University
Studies Committee which is a committee of
the Senate came forward on the 22nd in a
letter signed by that - by its Chair
Phil Kraemer, saying, basically, that
significant enrollment, diminished
funding, the Oral Communication
requirement can no longer be implemented
without impacting students' timely
graduation. So, the recommendation was
to delete this requirement. The next
stop for this proposal - oh, I'm sorry,
there was some other thoughts there about
the value of Oral Communication skills
and that there were - there could be
under undergraduate programs that
continue to require some of these
courses, but there are alternative
pathways that can be employed for
students to gain these skills. Again,
forgive me, I'm - for shortening this.
The next stop that this proposal took was
at the University
The
First, we charged the USP Committee to
develop a concrete plan through which
responsibility for developing these
skills would migrate to the departments
because it wasn't clear at that time how
it would happen should the proposal
eventually be approved. There's also an
amendment including the plan information
regarding how many programs would require
specific courses coming out of the
College of Communication Information
Studies, for instance, Com 181, and how
Communications would continue to serve
those students. Finally, the Senate
Council requested that some specific
information from the department and from
the college talking about current and
projected enrollment, trying to find out
what kind of resources would have to be
reallocated if there were decreases in
enrollment should this proposal be
approved. So there was some concrete
information that was sought. After that,
there was
another
discussion and to this, it was attended
by Department Chair Nancy Harrington from
the Department of Communication, Dean
Johnson from the College, and Enid
Waldhart from the College and also on the
USP Committee - Committee, and she's
also intergrally involved with Oral
Communications courses. The way this -
this meeting was as follows: Kay Chard
moved it to - to the Senate with no
recommendation but with a suggestion of
implementing a moratorium with
reevaluating the requirement in three
years, and it was properly seconded. At
that time we had to - there was further
discussion about what happened. Bailey
suggested changing it to suspension, and
we needed to be specific about which
students would be affected, incoming
freshmen and transfer students. I'm
sorry, the Provost was at the meeting as
well. And, finally, the sentiment
changed a little bit to make it a
positive recommendation, given that the
proposal is now a suspension rather than
a permanent deletion of the requirement.
I asked who would evaluate this or
reassess the requirement after three
years, and it was suggested that it go to
the Senate, and in particular, the USP
Committee. So this is the final Senate
Council motion that's now brought to you
on the - on the floor to suspend the
Oral Com requirement for three years for
entering freshmen, transfer students with
reevaluation by the Senate. USP
Committee will -- will develop guidelines
for reevaluation. It'll apply to the
entering classes of 2004, -5, and -6, and
it's come before you with a positive
recommendation.
I want to take an extra minute
to have Nancy Harrington present a little
bit of the background because that's the
critical feature as to the nature of the
discussion the
on this. So, Nancy, why don't you come
up and present the point of view of the
College.
HARRINGTON: All right. Thank you, Jeff.
You did a very good job summarizing the
discussion. I hope everyone has had a
chance to look at the Web presentation
that was posted for you-all because
that's the long presentation I made at
the
want to do now is just hit a couple high
points, I hope. Uh-oh. Okay. The
University Studies Program has been
around since 1988, and every since that
time, it's such a massive and complex
program. I think we all recognize that,
that there's been a lot of talk, and, in
fact, one of the strategic indicators in
a former strategic plan for the
University suggested that we streamline
this USP program. Since that time, there
have been some changes. In fact, a point
that's not up here in 1997, it was
approved to accept alternate paths to
Oral Communication because people were
recognizing that it was a significant
barrier for students to graduate. And a
couple of years ago, the
cross-disciplinary requirement was
removed because it was difficult to
achieve as well. And then most recently,
of course, the written communication part
of USP. There's an interim proposal to
change that from the two three-credit
hour courses to one four-credit hour
course followed up by a second course
later on. And, so, now, as Jeff
indicated and as you-all know, what we're
looking at now is no longer to delete
Oral Com from USP, but rather to give us
the opportunity for some breathing room,
to suspend the requirement for the next
three years, incoming and transfer
students, 2004, -5, and -6. The USP
Committee will develop guidelines for
reevaluation, and the department will
work very closely with that committee and
that charge. And, again, the suspension
will apply for the next three years. Why
now? Well, we all know we're looking at
an incoming class of 4,000 students.
It's very huge. We've all been facing
budget cuts. The department budget has
been affected, and the department has
been supporting Oral Com for several
years now through funding PTI sections,
through supplementing our lecturer's
salaries. And, so, with budget cuts, we
really can't do that anymore. The
Graduate Program, as well, has received
budget cuts, and so that impacts TAs.
The four-year graduation contract when
that was accepted for the trial period,
and we looked at that and said: My
goodness, what does this mean now for
students who cannot meet the Oral Com
requirement because they simply can't get
in? That's a pressing problem. And, of
course, SACS issues are always
omnipresent. And with SACS now not
liking PTIs so much anymore, not liking
TAs for that matter, we're going, my
goodness, if we have to have all
lecturers teach this, what are those
implications? I need to be very crystal
clear, we will still offer Oral
Communication classes. Basic Public
Speaking, Interpersonal Communications,
Small Group, Persuasive Speaking, those
courses will still be offered. They'll
be offered for the students whose
programs require them for accreditation,
programs in Engineering, in Business, in
Education, other programs. That's one of
the things we're going to be working with
the USP Committee to get a real handle on
is to find out who, exactly, needs these
courses. We have a sense for it, and we
know it's a large number of students, but
we'll get an answer. In addition, we
will be able to address the backlog that
is, again, building up. If you look at
the Web presentation, you'll see - you
will have seen the backlog, we were
eating away at it for a while. But when
the classes started increasing, that
backlog started going right back up.
And, so, we hope with this suspension for
three years, we will be able to address
those needs of those students who are
already here and who need it for
graduation. Again, during this
suspension period, we're going to explore
alternate approaches. And we've been
doing this all along. We really have.
At one point, we were working closely
with English to see if there was a way we
could couple our courses with their
courses. That didn't work out for
several reasons. We have Com 199, a
one-hour credit course that we couple
with some programs. That's complicated
for several reasons, but that's something
we can look at. We can look at other
alternatives as well. We'll use that
time to do this. Also, we'll explore
assessment strategies because assessing a
three-hour course is one thing, but
assessing all sorts of alternate paths is
something else entirely. So we'll need
to look at that very carefully for SACS.
And, also, we will look at criteria and,
again, this is working with the USP
Committee, of course, to evaluate what is
going on during this three-year period so
that three years from now when we look
back, we can say, well, where were we,
where are we now, has any good come of
this, and what should we do now? So,
again, here is the proposal. It comes
with a positive recommendation from
I can answer any questions for you. I
will let you know that Dr. Waldhart, Enid
Waldhart's in the audience as well. She
has expertise, unmatched expertise. And
our Dean David Johnson is there in the
back. He may be able to answer some
questions as well. Thank you-all.
CHAIR DEMBO: Before we start the discussion,
we had some very passionate discussion at
the
very clear opposing forces. One, is the
fact that as purists, we should hold
education as highly and as - as clearly
as we can in terms of what we're trying
to accomplish in creating a scholar to
leave the University. And the realists
among us said, well, you know, that's all
well and good, but when you only have X
number of dollars, and we have decreasing
dollars every day and increasing
students, you know, how are you going to
do it? You're going to always end up
with a less than adequate product despite
trying to -- to head for the best. So
there was some very passionate
discussions. The Provost was there, and
one of the things that, I think, made a
difference in my mind was at one point
Nancy was asked: Well, honestly, you
know, how would it take - how much money
would it take right now just to keep up
with the current demand and not even
worrying about next year or the year
after? And the number turns out to be
about $600,000 to hire new faculty, not
PTIs.
HARRINGTON: Or lecturers, yeah. Because
lecturers come with things like benefits
and -- and such that really add to the
cost.
CHAIR DEMBO: And the Provost said, he says:
I can get $600,000 tomorrow. He said:
I'll take it from Ag and Education and
Dentistry and Medicine.
HARRINGTON: We don't want that.
CHAIR DEMBO: And that's - that's where we
are. So, first, are there any questions
for Nancy about the specifics of this
before we get into the philosophy of it?
Professor Yates.
YATES: The proposal was to put the
program in abeyance for three years.
After three years, would you care to
speculate what the - the outcome might
be?
HARRINGTON: I'm still working on my psychic
powers. But after three years, we'll -
we'll have a better power idea of
enrollment at the University. We've all
watched as it has gone up and up and up
over the years. I will be curious to see
how high can it go. After three years,
although we have studied very seriously
alternative paths and from our department
perspective, we're not comfortable with
the alternate paths. We feel the best
way to educate our students in Oral
Communication skills is with a
three-credit hour course in the
classroom, small classroom sizes, but we
are willing to look. We really are.
And, in fact, at our most recent faculty
meeting just last Wednesday, we discussed
this at length. And I asked the faculty:
Look, I'm -- I'm getting to speak to the
Senate on Monday. Tell me what your
feelings are. And there were mixed
emotions. There really were. Several
faculty said, gosh, we've really got to
get these skills out to all the students.
At the same time as Jeff indicated, there
are concerns of - of reality. But I
don't think I'm answering your question.
In three years, I don't know. If - if
we have something viable that our
department's comfortable with and that
the Senate is comfortable with, I think
we would be willing to go with that. It
may be that nothing is viable and
everybody goes, okay, we're going back.
And so be it.
CHAIR DEMBO: Steve, is there just a follow
up to that?
YATES: Yeah, it's just a follow up.
Because, of course, USP looked at all of
these proposals that were presented, like
Communications, didn't see a light at the
end of the tunnel. I just wonder whether
this is delaying action. In three years,
you're going to be at the same place once
again.
HARRINGTON: It may be but for right now the
only positive recommendation that was
able to come out
of
this delaying action. Folks were not
comfortable with just deleting it.
CHAIR DEMBO: I don't frequently give my
opinion. I'll do it right now: That it
would be just as much a mistake to -- to
treat this in isolation over the next
three years, as it - as it has been to
consider that once somebody fulfills all
their USP, they are a scholar. So, I
think, Phil, you probably agree with me
that the whole notion of general
education does need to be revisited.
PHIL: No, that's true.
CAVAGNERO: Michael Cavagnero, Arts and
Sciences. Has the possibility of
allowing students to test out, has this
been considered and discussed?
HARRINGTON: We have been doing a bypass
exam for Com 181 for several years.
CAVAGNERO: I see.
HARRINGTON: And we have about 20 students a
year, about, who take advantage of that.
Yeah.
CHAIR DEMBO: Professor Lesnaw, did you have
your hand up?
LESNAW: I had one question.
HARRINGTON: Yes, ma'am.
LESNAW: How are our benchmark
institutions dealing with this issue?
Can we get any --
HARRINGTON: Absolutely. Basically,
they're - they're not doing it the way
we do it. I did a survey of our
benchmark institutions about two years
ago, and of the 17 responding, only 3 had
an Oral Communication requirement for the
whole entire student body. The others,
they might offer Communication, and it
could fill an elective. Others, it would
offer it and it wouldn't fill an
elective. And, so, there were only 3.
CHAIR DEMBO: Professor Staten and then
Professor Bailey.
STATEN: Teresa Staten, College of
Nursing. I have two questions. One, is
could you tell us what you mean by
reevaluation? What is that going to
encompass? And secondly, you said
several times that the alternative
pathways may not be adequate. On what do
you base that?
HARRINGTON: Right. Excellent questions.
The first question, it would be addressed
over these three years. I mean, we would
work with the USP Committee to decide
what those criteria should be so that
when we get to the end of the three
years, we'll be able to decide whether
this is a good thing or not. As far as
alternative paths, in 1997, that's when
folks were able to say, okay, we're not
doing any of the Oral Com or the TA 225,
by the way, which is an option but a very
small number of students are served
there. And, so, anywhere from 13 to 19
alternate paths kind of emerged, and,
frankly, we're not sure how evaluation is
going on with those alternate paths right
now. So, we don't know. And that would
be something that we would be looking at,
especially if we create new alternate
paths during this three-year period.
CHAIR DEMBO: Enid, did you want to add to
that?
WALDHART: Yeah. Let me just add to that
because nursing and ag are probably two
of the departments that have very strong
alternate paths, but it took us a long
time to get there. And, so, we are
looking at that kind of thing. Like,
some of the things that come up when we
talk about teaching a discipline, we've
tried to come up with good parallels or
good kinds of analogies, and it's been
very difficult, asking people to teach
something that is not their expertise.
Like, many of you responded when there
was reference to a second writing course
that could come from the disciplines.
And people said, oh, not me. I - I
don't want to teach. I can't teach
English Writing or -- or whatever. And
that some of the same kinds of questions,
I think, are likely to come up here.
Some people are very comfortable teaching
it, and some are very, very not
comfortable. Some are well prepared, and
some are not and that looking at
alternatives for workshops with faculty,
workshops with people who are going to -
to have to do this kind of evaluation of
Oral Com skills in whatever alternative
is offered, it takes a lot of time. And
I think, this goes back to what Steve was
asking: We don't know what it's going to
look like. It may come up that there's
lots. Several of the alternate paths
that were started that seemed very strong
in 1997 have just simply reverted back
to - to taking one of the other COM
courses or the TA course because their
faculty just didn't feel comfortable with
it. And, so, I don't know that we know.
I think we need to work on it. And this
hiatus, this suspension, is something
that, I think, will allow us a chance.
Right now we're - we're trying furiously
to catch up with the people who haven't
had the course yet. And that if we could
have a breathing space, would allow us to
investigate some of these other
alternatives. And that's really what -
what this suspension would, I think, help
us do.
CHAIR DEMBO: Thanks, Enid. Professor
Bailey.
BAILEY: Veterinary Science. In partial
answer to - to Professor Yates' question
about - about what would happen after
three years, we certainly could be in the
same place after three years if nothing
happens. But when we discussed it in the
these alternate paths be developed. I
mean, that's the hope. If that happens,
then there may be some resolution, and
that was part of the thing that led a
very skeptical and critical Senate
Council to come through and make a
positive recommendation on a three-year
suspension of the evaluation.
HARRINGTON: And to echo something Enid said
and that Ruth brought up a minute ago,
Topsy Staten, we did work very closely
with nursing and had several meetings and
looked at the course content and looked
at assessment strategies and so on over
and over and over again, and now have
something that is a good example of what
can happen.
CHAIR DEMBO: Kaveh. Then Ray.
TAGAVI: On the handout below the - the
courses, it says the department would
continue to search through the programs
required one of these courses. So, in
partial answer to Professor Yates'
comment, also, I'd like to say there is a
way of making this effectively and gain a
USP requirement even before the three
years by different programs, making this
a requirement. If it's very important
for any program, just make it a
requirement, and it will be so.
HERRINGTON: Thank you. That's true.
CHAIR DEMBO: Professor Ford.
FORD: Ford, Family Studies. This is
a clarification. When you say
reevaluation, are you talking about
reevaluation of the oral communication's
requir