UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

SENATE

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Regular Session

April 12, 2004

3:00 p.m.

W. T. Young Library

First Floor Auditorium

Lexington, Kentucky

Dr. Jeffrey Dembo, Chair

An/Dor Reporting & Video Technologies, Inc.

179 East Maxwell Street

Lexington, Kentucky 40515

(859) 254-0568

University of Kentucky Senate

April 12, 2004

* * * * * * * * *

JEFFREY DEMBO, CHAIR

GIFFORD BLYTON, PARLIAMENTARIAN

REBECCA SCOTT, SECRETARY TO SENATE COUNCIL

MARLA FRYE, COURT REPORTER

* * * * * * * * *

The chair called the meeting to order at

3:03 p.m.

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 5:00 today. I don't know

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 Senate Council

decided that we should form a separate ad

hoc committee on student reinstatements.

The Senate Rules state that if you've

been suspended from UK a second time, you

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

Senate Council. And there have been four

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 Davy Jones. As you

may recall, Davy was filling in for a

departed Trustee, Claire Pomeroy from the

College of Medicine who went to the West

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. Roy has

served as Chair of the Senate Council in

the past and as a Senator. Carol has

just been elected Senator from the

College of Medicine and has served on 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

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 Senate Council.

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 Senate Council had a

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 Jeff Dembo

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

Senate Council, essentially, the week

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 Senate Council meeting to

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

Senate Council. And if there's not

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 Senate Council, didn't we say

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 Senate Council

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: Senate Council said third or

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 Senate Council with a

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 Senate Council, and it was

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 Senate Council on 2/23.

The Senate Council responded in this way:

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 Senate Council

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 Senate Council has or had

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 Senate Council meeting. And what I

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

Senate Council, and at this time, I hope

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 Senate Council because there are two

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 Senate Council was

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

Senate Council, the interest was that

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

requirement, right, not reevaluation of

the suspension, correct?

SPEAKER: No.

TAGAVI: Of the suspension.

FORD: It's reevaluation of the

suspension rather than reevaluation of

the --

HARRINGTON: Well --

FORD: Do you see the difference?

HARRINGTON: I do see the difference, and -

and it's, actually, I think, it's both.

FORD: Well, both is fine.

HARRINGTON: Sure.

FORD: That's what I'm wondering is

if it's going to be a reevaluation of the

Oral Communication's requirement, then

that seems like reasonable. But if

you're just going to reevaluate the

suspension without getting down to the

basic question, you won't be where you

want to be.

HARRINGTON: Yeah - no, are the alternate

paths working? Did the suspension lead

to good outcomes, things like that.

CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. Jackie.

NOONAN: Noonan. This is a question as

I don't know anything about this, but

if this is a requirement all students

have to take, is there not a way that you

can have students confirm that they know

how they speak English before they come

to college by doing something at the high

school level? Can they not take an exam

before they come in, or do something?

There must be some that don't need this

requirement.

HARRINGTON: Sure. And we --

NOONAN: And the same thing for the

writing one. I mean, some of them go to

high school and write themes and things

all the time. Can't you opt out a number

of students and only take those that need

it?

HARRINGTON: Right. Well, with the oral

communication requirement, we do have a

bypass exam that we make available for

students.

NOONAN: But you said only a few take

it.

HARRINGTON: Well, sure.

NOONAN: And -- well, why wouldn't you

make them take it then, and if they

don't pass, then they have to take the

course?

HARRINGTON: I think even Enid has a

response.

WALDHART: Can I interrupt on this one

because the logistics of having everybody

do this before they come in is a

nightmare. Way back when I was an

undergraduate, we tried this at the

University of Wisconsin, and it - it was

horrific because of the numbers of

students going through trying to do this.

The expense of it now, I mean, we were

talking 600, 1,000 students doing this,

and it - it was very difficult. One

thing that, I think, is very important to

remember, SACS used to require a course

in communication skills. SACS no longer

requires a course. What they require is

Oral Communication competency. So, if

there are ways that - that alternative

programs can provide that means to

competency, then SACS requirements have

been met, and then it's less critical

that all students take Com courses. So,

I think, there's just so many things that

we truly don't know, but we need - we

need time to try them and to see if it

will work and - and the time is what

we're really asking for now.

CHAIR DEMBO: By extension, it also means

that each college or each department

could very - could try to identify what

types or what depth of communication

skills their majors or their students

require. There was a hand up over here.

Professor Braun.

BRAUN: Accounting. I wanted to ask

just a point of question. In 2004, -5,

and -6, did they just not have to - will

they have to substitute a course so that

it's just they'll take four credits less

of University Studies requirement?

HARRINGTON: Well, three credits, yes. They

just - they would not take that Oral

Communication part of USP. And, so, all

other graduation requirements would still

be in place, 120 hours, all of that kind

of thing. It's just that they would have

three hours that they did not need to

fulfill with Oral Communication. And a

point we probably should make is that if

at the end of these three years everybody

goes: None of this worked; we want Oral

Com back in USP. It would not be

retroactive for those three years worth

of students. On one level, that goes

without saying, but on another level, I

think it needs to be said.

BRAUN: Just one other minor point.

HARRINGTON: Sure.

BRAUN: In the four-year contract

thing, using that as a justification for

this, sticks in my craw a little bit just

because, you know, we're only going to be

trying this thing out, right? And I

think there was a pretty wide and

diverging opinions about whether that was

going to be a good thing for us to be

doing anyway, given the budget situation

and all, and now to all of a sudden see

that as a justification for this, I

think, is pushing the envelope.

HARRINGTON: Well, I'll tell you it was for

us kind of a last straw, frankly, because

there were so many other pressing reasons

that we've been grappling with for so

long, and then this came along, and we

thought: Oh, my gosh, if this does pass,

sure, it's a trial right now, but if it

does come to be, then what? And,

especially, when you consider that the

students' home departments would be

responsible for paying the tuition of the

students to take those courses they

couldn't get into in four years, wow,

that would be really a disaster and a lot

of ill will and trouble. So, it's not a

major part; it's a small part.

CHAIR DEMBO: Chuck. Then Jim.

STABEN: Chuck Staben, Biology. I have

almost a completely different take on

this issue that makes this discussion

largely irrelevant in my own mind. We

talked mostly about the requirement

itself, and I don't think that's what

this discussion really should be about.

It's suspending a degree requirement due

to resource limitation. And we're going

to face a lots of resource limitations in

this University over the next several

years. So, I guess, I'll go back to

being an idealist. If we want to

reconsider the Communication's

requirement, that's a fine discussion to

have in the Senate. I welcome that. But

I'm going to set that completely aside

and say: We're saying that for 4,000

students per year, 12,000 people we're

going to admit to the University of

Kentucky, we philosophically accept that

resource limitation changes their degree

requirement. And - and presumably if we

accept that in this case, we'll accept

that argument in any future case or many

future cases. And when Chemistry comes

and says we can't teach Organic Chemistry

to the Biology majors, we'll accept that

argument. When Biology says we can't -

we can't teach Biology to these majors

and those majors because we must do this

or that, we'll accept that argument. I

think this is incredibly dangerous and

is - is not anything I'm - I'm

inclined to support.

HARRINGTON: I - I think that concern was

discussed at the Senate Council meeting

as well, but, please, I ask you to

remember it doesn't mean that 12,000

students aren't going to get Oral

Communication skills training. A

significant number of those students will

receive it because their programs do

require it, and we'll continue to offer

it. In addition to that, we do continue

to look at alternative paths. But then,

to answer your question, you know, ideal

versus money or resources, I don't have

an answer for that other than on the

receiving end of the department, I don't

know what to tell parents when they call,

and I don't know what to tell students

when they show up when we just can't do

it anymore.

CHAIR DEMBO: This is an important point.

Jim and Kay, you had your hands up. Do

you have separate points to bring up?

CHARD: Mine is in reaction to that --

Senate Council floor.

CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. Could we just for a

second iterate what was just brought up?

Jim, I'll get back to you. Okay?

CHARD: I don't think that that's how

the Senate Council saw this. And I - I

surveyed a fair number of Graduate School

faculty who feel - and no knock against

Communications here, but feel that TA

instruction is a poor way to teach

communication. And when they compared

graduate students from other institutions

to UK, the UK students fail when it comes

to having good, solid, Oral Communication

skills. And there are many people in the

Senate Council floor who thought this is

an opportunity for Communication to get

out of this TA model that SACS is already

criticizing and move into a better model

that will improve Oral Communication

throughout the curriculum just like

writing across the curriculum is where we

ought to be going as well, some people

think. And it's not at all an issue of

us saying, we don't have the money to do

it. I think it's a two-fold issue that

we put squarely back into Communications'

hands.

CHAIR DEMBO: Mike. Then Ernie if you're

talking about this specific point?

CIBULL: Yeah. I think a couple of

things. I think it's even worse than

what you stated because at the same time

we're doing this, we're raising tuition,

so, you know, we're charging them more,

educating them less, and compromising

based on resources. However, it's also

an opportunity for us to develop better

ways of educating students. And I think

that it - it probably won't - we won't

be able to find ways of doing that with

every single course. Maybe, you know,

Biology for Chemistry majors and

Chemistry for Biology majors, we won't be

able to find a better way than the

traditional way. But my guess is we can

find a better way than teaching separate,

free-standing Oral Communication courses

when, essentially, every discipline

requires public speaking of some sort.

And we have the - we have a resource

department that, hopefully, would be

willing to help each of us develop those

programs. SACS requires competency. It

does not require a course. That

competency requirement still exists

whether we - whether we suspend Oral

Communication or not. So, I think, there

is a reason that resources are shrinking.

We're going to have to do something.

This is a good area to do something.

There's a hell of a lot of students

involved in this. You can save a lot of

money in Oral Communication. I don't how

much money you can save in, you know,

like architecture or what have you, the

small courses. So, I - I - I argued

with this - this young lady when she

presented this to the Senate Council, and

I still have reservations. And, I think,

we need to hold their feet to the fire in

terms of developing a - a viable

program, but I think we should give them

a chance to do that.

CHAIR DEMBO: Ernie, were you going to

comment on this point?

YANARELLA: Yes. I - I want to echo both

Chuck and Mike's comments in this regard.

I think I said to you, Jeff, after the

meeting: Welcome to the resource wars of

the 21st century of higher education. We

are now confronting, I think, a very

serious issue where we risk educational

policy being sacrificed on the altar

of - of budgetary exigencies. We need

to effect extra space, an open, candid

debate with - and discussion with higher

administration about this. If our area

of policy - if our area of concern is

educational policy, we cannot with any

sense of equanimity be very happy or

satisfied with - with requirement after

requirement going by the boards. It

seems to me that - that perhaps next

year one of the things - one of the

priorities that we might say would be to

explore this in greater depth. It is not

clear to me that the administration has

shown its cards on this. It seems to

have found a neat little formula for -

for holding at bay the wolves, but it has

not genuinely dealt with the kinds of

vines that are being - being set -- set

upon in English and communications and --

and, perhaps, in other - other areas as

well. I hope that out of the next three

years of reevaluation, that some kind of

a dispersion model that - that some of

us have talked about will become - will

become viable, that we'll allow for

communications competency to be - to be

taught here at this University. I think

this is a very, very important element of

general education. And to see it pass

after three years, would be a real

heartbreak to me.

CHAIR DEMBO: For a point of information,

at last Tuesday's Board meeting, in the

same breath that the President informed

the Board of Trustees that unless things

get better, we're going to continue to

lose our faculty to Vanderbilt, he also

showed us a slide, among other things,

that the toll that this budget is taking

on the University is a proposal that the

Senate is now deliberating over. So, he

announced that to the Board as one of the

many palpable ways that we're suffering

because of - of the budget shortfall.

Darryl, are we on the same point?

JENNINGS: I completely agree with -- with

all the points that Chuck made and

with Mike - that Mike made, and I just

come, though, to a different conclusion,

and that is as we as Senators are not

driving this compromise in the quality of

education that we're offering. The State

Legislature is driving this compromise.

And because there comes a point they

can't cut enough money beyond which no

idealism on our part can preserve the

quality of education. As long as

Frankfort can cut money and see no real

consequence, as long as we bend and cover

over, whether that be through offering

mediocre programs or whatever, they can

continue to cut. There has to be some

visible documentable bleeding before

Frankfort will recognize it. And in one

breath we criticize administration for

being unwilling to make the hard

decisions to make the cuts as opposed to

just weakening everything across the

board, I think we have a very well-

reasoned, thoughtful proposal to make a

painful yet necessary cut, and I think we

need to set an example as faculty that we

are willing to make the kind of hard

decision that we expect from

administration, and I think we need to

send through the Board of Trustees that

message to Frankfort, that, yes, indeed,

this may be the first step in that slope,

but this is what will come down the road

if Frankfort continues to make those

kinds of decisions.

CHAIR DEMBO: Did any of you read the recent

Chronicle issue where they talked about

California and the plight of their budget

cut there? On one hand, it was deeply

reassuring to realize you are not alone.

On the other hand, California starts out

at a very different home base than we do.

As a flagship institution and a state

that has classically been behind - under

the median in so many different areas.

Jim, should I get back to you?

ALBISETTI: It was on a different point.

CHAIR DEMBO: Okay.

ALBISETTI: Probably directed to Phil

Kraemer as much as anyone. Students of

this University when there are changes in

requirements, always have the option to

graduate what they entered under but also

if they prefer a new requirement. Are

you prepared for the students who entered

in 2003 are going to say: I would like

to not have to fulfill Communications or

is a suspended requirement not a change?

KRAEMER: I could have said that to

you, Jim. That's an issue, but I think

in this circumstance, it really - this

is a better compromise. I mean, we're

not in a good situation on this one. I

think there have been some very pointed

comments made. I think - I want to

remain optimistic that this three years

give us a period to look. I would argue,

though, that the slippery-slope argument

doesn't trouble me much. We're not

voting an algorithm here. This is an

aspecific case. We are going to have to

take that - each case at a time. And I

think - I'm encouraged by Ernie's

comments. I think this Senate needs to

have a real dialogue about where we are,

what quality is that we can provide. But

there's no question that quality

education has been hurt by the state's

behavior. And if not this, what else?

Because realize this is not a question of

this or not this. It's this versus that.

The Provost could reallocate funding to

cover this, but if we continue to put

ourselves in that position, we're going

to really go to war at each other.

CHAIR DEMBO: Topsy.

STATEN: I guess I want to support this,

but I would like us to kind of separate

these issues out. I think a good

evaluation of the Oral Communication

requirement and how students may have

that when they come in, how we can meet

it in their time here, how we can

document it at the end is really a great

thing for us to do, and probably ought to

do more across the board with the USP.

But this is one issue about this budget,

but think of the number of times we have

had faculty come asking to assure that

students can be successful in their

program, thus, they've asked us to set

second admissions to their program. Am I

saying that clearly? You know, that -

that you have to have a certain GPA and

make certain grades in a course. Those

really are at the same issue. How many

students can you manage, whether it's

Oral Communication or in the College of

Communication, how many students can you

manage with that major? We are not

having that dialog, and we've got to have

it. I just want to support people's

comments about that. We have got to talk

about how we can do that and be very real

about it because it is affecting the

quality of education and the opportunity

for education for some students.

CHAIR DEMBO: So the topic is enrollment

management, is that --

STATEN: And quality education.

CHAIR DEMBO: And quality education. Are

there other topics that --

GOVINDARAJULU: Question.

CHAIR DEMBO: Is there a question?

GOVINDARAJULU: Question.

CHAIR DEMBO: Yes.

GOVINDARAJULU: I want to know if - if the

faculty - if it costs $600,000 to manage

the program, and if there are faculty

primarily interested in Oral

Communication, what happens to those

people if this program is suspended?

HARRINGTON: Well, it would take about

$600,000 if we transformed the program to

be able to address the needs of 4,000

incoming students and meet that with

lecturers. Right now the program is not

set up that way at all. We have four

lecturers. We have a lot of TA and

PTI-taught classes. We have a budget

that is kind of cobbled together. We

have one set of money - one set of

money? Some money that could serve about

2,400 students, 25, 26, when - when this

all first started. And since that time,

there's been some influx of funds, some

recurring, a lot non-recurring. I

mentioned earlier that the department

funds a lot of it. And, so, as part of

this three-year suspension period, we'll

get a real handle on the budget and -

and know which students really need our

three-hour courses and the alternate

paths and things like that. And, so,

it's not like there's $600,000 that will

materialize.

CHAIR DEMBO: We just have a few minutes

left. I'd like to encourage those that

have new points to bring them up.

Professor Grossman. Then Professor

Tagavi.

GROSSMAN: Yeah, I have two but I'll just

bring up one. When the English

Department was facing similar problems,

they came up with a proposal to bring to

us to change their requirement in a way

that was pedagogically sound. They

didn't ask for a suspension. I

understand why a suspension is necessary

for communications, why you haven't

already come up with proposals. We've

been seeing this come down the pike for

several years now. I don't understand

why we need - why communications needs a

suspension, whereas, other USP programs

are constantly trying to find new ways to

meet their demand.

HARRINGTON: Right. As I tried to indicate,

we have been looking at alternate paths

for several years now. Part of it is a

philosophical concern, where, when we

look at what our colleagues are doing at

institutions across the nation, we see

courses very similar to what we offer,

three-hour skills based courses, small

classrooms, and I think, in our hearts we

believe that this is how you should do

it. And, so, with alternate paths, it's

like, well, what concessions are we

willing to make? Some, it's Com 199, the

one-hour course. That's supposed to be

offered early in a student's career so

that later when they get to their upper

division courses in Engineering or

wherever, that they can build on those

skills. What we find is that it

flip-flops because of the course demand.

They can't get it until their final

semester, and then it's good for them but

it's not as good for them. And, so, we

really have been grappling with this at

the same time that we've been trying to

manage all of this demand. And, so, with

this suspension, it will give us the

breathing room, a phrase I used earlier

that I'll use again.

CHAIR DEMBO: Kaveh. We have to sort of wind

this up pretty soon.

TAGAVI: I don't think I heard - I

might be wrong, but I don't think the

answer to Senator Albisetti's question.

Assume a student at the end of this

semester, he's going to have all the

credit required, all - all the courses

that are required, he has it except for

Com 181 which is required by USP, would

that student - could he work this -

and we should say that's an unequal right

now because this is a big deal for that

particular student.

ALBISETTI: It's clear to me as I read the

proposal it speaks about incoming

students. The average student, so it

is - it's -I think it is clear we need

to be redundant and say it, but that's

what we want to say that a student who -

a current student who's enrolled in the

University of Kentucky would not be

covered by this hiatus.

HARRINGTON: Well, and let me say that when

the incoming class when not all 4,000

students need these classes, that should

open up some seats then for those

students who are trying to get a seat and

gradate.

CHAIR DEMBO: Steve.

YATES: Yeah, Steve Yates, Chemistry

again. I serve on the University Studies

Committee. We spend a lot of time on

this issue, and other than giving our

students credit for cell phone time, I

don't see a way to address it.

(AUDIENCE LAUGHS)

YATES: But, I guess, I'm really taken

by Chuck's comments because at the time

University Studies was proposed, I don't

think Oral Communications was originally

included - was included in it. They

argued very strenuously that it should be

included, and on the basis of principle

it was, if history serves me correctly.

Basically, what we're doing is we're

reneging on that principle. And I don't

see that a suspension, a moratorium, a

putting this in abeyance is really the

answer because we've looked at the

solutions, and it's going to take a lot

of effort by people in other programs to

come up with -- roots. In the - in the

time of diminishing resources, I don't

see people going that direction. And,

so, I would prefer to vote up - vote

this USP requirement for Oral

Communications either up or down. I

don't like the idea of the suspension. I

think it just puts off this decision.

We're going to thrash around for three

more years. We've thrashed around for

several years already. There is no

obvious solution other than more

resources. And if we aren't willing to

support what we believe is a - is a good

program with those resources, then we

should discontinue it; we should move on.

CHAIR DEMBO: There can be many changes,

however, in funding from Frankfort, the

budget of the University and its various

programs and colleges between now and

then. So, either something will get a

whole lot different showing us which way

to go, or it won't, and then we may be

back to considering a permanent

suspension of this. We need to - I

think I sort of hear things winding down,

and if there's nobody else that has a

pressing issue that has not been brought

up, I think we're ready to bring it to a

vote. Professor Grossman.

GROSSMAN: Yes, I'm sorry. But I do.

This idea that departments are free to

require their students to - to take Com

courses, it's going to require that -

that departments amend their programs,

and then these amendments are going to

have to go through the system somehow,

and at what - how fast are they going to

occur, and are they going to occur in

time for students to join the majors, and

when will these students apply?

HARRINGTON: Yeah, actually --

GROSSMAN: Has all this been thought

through?

HARRINGTON: That's an excellent question,

and I think, Phil, you can help me

remember. This was actually brought up

in the discussions of the USP Committee,

and there was talk of somehow

streamlining the process, bundling the

applications to address that very

concern. You're right, we don't want

something to take an extra - God knows

how long to get through.

KRAEMER: I think the beginning point,

Bob, would be that the programs

themselves meeting to discuss and

deciding whether Oral Communication would

be a part of the program. And then try

to present that through the normal

channels, but try to expedite that in

some way. But during the three-year

period, I think we have more than

sufficient time to be able to do that.

GROSSMAN: Well, what - I mean, what if

the Chemistry Department decides they

want all freshmen entering in 2004 to

have to take communication courses?

KRAEMER: Well, you already do. We have

an altering problem.

CHAIR DEMBO: Could I --

GROSSMAN: For the third credit, COM 199

credit. Okay, the Physics department

doesn't have the alternative.

CHAIR DEMBO: Could I step in to answer

that for a second. That's part of the

academic approval process that the Senate

Council is involved in.

GROSSMAN: But it's not a part of the

requirement when they enter the

University, if they sign up for the

department, and then the department

changes its requirements, is the student

going to be able to say, oh, no, I don't

have to take this because it wasn't part

of it when I started?

CHAIR DEMBO: That was in place when they

were admitted to the University.

GROSSMAN: So in other words, as - as

long as the - if the program that --

when they were admitted to the

University, so in other words, it won't

be required of any student - of any

student who - who enrolls in the fall of

2004 --

CHAIR DEMBO: Unless --

GROSSMAN: Unless the -- at all, because

there's not enough time to change it.

There's no way for the program to require

it.

HARRINGTON: Right. In the fall of 2004,

I believe you are exactly right, that

they will not be required to meet that

requirement as the USP requirement or as

a program requirement unless they - it

is already in effect.

CHAIR DEMBO: Okay, I'm going to --

HARRINGTON: In 2005, that changes.

CHAIR DEMBO: I'm going to close the

discussion. It's five o'clock which

means we are on schedule except for one

minute I'd really like to have you hear

me out, but, first, I would like for us

to take a vote to the proposal now is a

three-year suspension of the Oral

Communication requirement. I hope it's

clear who that applies to, and the

rationale for it. All in favor of this

suspension, please raise your hand?

(SENATE VOTES)

CHAIR DEMBO: Okay. All opposed. Let's take

a count, Michelle, please.

(SENATE VOTES)

SOHNER: I think, 12.

CHAIR DEMBO: Keep your hands up, please.

SOHNER: Yeah, 12.

CHAIR DEMBO: Thank you. Any abstentions?

Thank you very much.

I just want to say two words

please, give me - give me two minutes of

your time. I've not taken much time as

the Chair for - for my own personal

viewpoints, and part of that - much of

that was deliberate. The goal that I had

over the past two years was to affirm and

strengthen the role of the University

Senate in the governance of the

University and in the decision-making

process. We had been through a

hellacious time in many ways over the

last many years. And things didn't

change in terms of the number of

obstacles that we faced. My goal in

terms of presiding over the Senate was to

help create a cohesive rational and

autonomous group of people that could

effectively make decisions. And in order

to do that, it required giving them the

freedom to experiment and to succeed and

to fail and to, finally, congeal. I was

delighted to - to see that happen with

the Senate Council over - it took - it

took a while for the personalities to

mesh. And now, while we may all

disagree, we all know that we have a fair

degree of respect for one another. I

think we've achieved that in the

University Senate. If you look at what

we've dealt with over the past several

years, the list is quite astonishing. A

changeover in many personnel in central

administration, proposal for and

migration to the provost model, a

dissolution of one college and the

reapportionment of all of its students,

faculty, and staff, a proposal to create

a new college, a proposal to decrease

retiree health benefits, trying to define

what is appropriate faculty

representation on task forces and

committees, a proposal just recently to

separate an entire and integral part of

our University, namely, our community

college, and to send it off to an

uncharted territory, reacting to SACS

accreditation requirements, and then

after getting the recommendations, having

to further react to those, and, finally,

we, as a Senate, had the - the loss of

our Senate Council office through a fire

and underwent several different

iteration, and, finally, we had the

departure of a longtime Senate Council

employee. So, I think, we've been

through an awful lot. I probably haven't

touched on -- on half of them there.

We've accomplished a whole lot, however.

I think we've properly codified for all

of the community what the Senate expects

to have happen in terms of the due

process along the way. I think we've

reemphasized, not just to our community,

but to our Board of Trustees, and,

hopefully, to Frankfort what the voice of

the University community is. And I

daresay that the Board of Trustees now at

every one of their meetings when they're

considering academic affairs, they make

sure to put in there what the University

Senate has said about something, and to

my gratification, there were individual

Board members that came over to me

privately during a break, saying: Jeff,

what do you really think about this? And

I hope, Ernie, you have the same

experience with developing that

relationship. On a personal note, I need

to give thanks to just a few people.

Please bear me out. First, is to my

family who's been very understanding over

these past six years, and it's one thing

to carry a beeper for patients that are

on call, it's another thing to be

responsive to the entire academic

community when the latest crisis arises.

Also, thanks to my own College and to my

Dean who have also put up with my other

halftime appointment. In reality it was

two full-time appointments. Thanks to

all of you for the friendships that I

developed over the years and have

permitted me to work with very talented

and caring individuals. Specifically, I

need to thank An/dor Reporting and Marla

and her colleagues for the good work

they've done in transcribing our Senate

meetings. To James Forrest for his good

work and all the aid and support we've

gotten from him. James, you're always

there, thank you very much. To Michelle

Sohner who, once again, has helped us out

as Sergeant at Arms. Michelle, I really

would have liked to have seen you eject

somebody. A personal thanks to a person

who's become a dear friend, Gifford

Blyton, through whose eyes I've learned

what it means to be a dedicated teacher

over your entire lifetime and who truly

knows the meaning, not just of

parliamentary procedure, but the intent

behind it. Gifford, I'm deeply

appreciate to you, thank you so much.

There are a number of people who work

behind the scenes for the whole

University Senate. These include support

people at each of the different councils:

Retha Higgs at Undergraduate Council,

Lisa Holland at the Graduate Council,

Kathy Owen at the Medical Center Academic

Council, Sylvia Williams at LCC. In

addition to folks in the Registrar's

office who work tirelessly to make sure

that all the I's get dotted, T's get

crossed for your departments and your

colleges. That includes Cleo Price,

Jackie Hagar and Tonya Prince. Finally,

there's some people who also have been a

unique help this year. I mentioned

Phyllis Nash during her time as the Chief

of Staff of the University of the

President's office. Kris Hobson in the

Provost's office has been an incredible

help, and I don't know how she does it

all, and it's -- she does it well. All

the Deans' staffs have done a wonderful

job for us. Angel Clark, you may

remember her, she was our part-time

employee that helped during that

transition period, and she's no longer

with us. She's gone on to greener

pastures, but she did a wonderful job.

And then, finally, chairs of the various

committees: Chuck Staben, there's nobody

who knows more about the University

finance right now other than Dick Siemer

and yourself, as Chair of the

Institutional Finance Resource Allocation

Committee which has been working very

hard this year. Bob Grossman, thank you

so much for staffing the - chairing the

Academic Programs Committee. Wally

Ferrier is not here. He did a masterful

job with the Admissions and Academic

Standards Committee. And Kate Chard, I

have a confession, when I first asked you

if you would consider chairing it, I

think I used the excuse that it's

probably going to be the most active

committee that we'll ever have. I was

making that up, but it turned out to be

the truth, and I'm deeply appreciative

for the quality work that you did and

your attention to details. Thank you

very much. All the Senate Council

members, I appreciate your friendship and

your colleaguality. There's a few people

I need to thank. Braphus Kaalund is not

here. As the student member, he showed

up for every meeting, and the voice of

the students is always incredibly

important. And Braphus did a masterful

job at giving sage advice and wisdom at

just the right time. I look forward to a

career in leadership for him whatever he

chooses to do. Lee Edgerton, as Vice

Chair, I truly appreciate your counsel

and wisdom. It's been a privilege to

serve with you. Peggy Saunier will be

leaving the Council on June 30th by virtue

of the fact that LCC is no longer a

direct part of our family. Nonetheless,

Peggy has a memory like no other that

I've seen, and she could quote word and

verse sometimes even better than Davy

Jones. Peggy, thank you so much for

everything you did on the Council, and I

will miss you. And, finally, to my

colleague, Ernie Yanarella, to whom I'm

going to give the gavel is just a moment,

I have no doubt that the utmost

confidence in the whole University

community, but in myself, personally, in

the job you're going to do to lead us

forward. Finally, I wouldn't be finished

without saying a very big thank you to

someone who's made a place for herself in

a very difficult situation. When you

step into the shoes of somebody who's

held an office for 30 years, and who the

University has known in the position,

whether it was a certain way of doing

things, it can be very disruptive and

sometimes it can be, actually, very

disheartening to have to fill that slot

and to exert a new influence, a new

personality. When we interviewed for the

new Senate Council Chair Administrative

Coordinator, Enid Waldhart who was

Co-chair at that time and I interviewed

some candidates. And when Ms. Scott left

that office, she - Enid and I just

looked at each other. We said: That's

the one. Rebecca Scott came across with

an incredible degree of knowledge,

enthusiasm, already present skill by her

work in the -- in the Graduate School as

the degree - degree officer -

degree-granting officers. And, I think,

you said you were also known for your

attention to details, sometimes to the -

to the rue of some of the graduate

students. But since coming into the

office, Rebecca has worked tirelessly,

not just to learn the ropes, but to make

sure that the Senate Council office acted

in the spirit of what we all envisioned

it should be as a representative to the

University and of the University. And,

so, it was a privilege to build that with

you, Rebecca, and I'm deeply

appreciative, not just of all the work

you've done, but your friendship, and I

will miss working with you that closely.

Thank you.

And, now, I take pleasure in

handing over the gavel. It feels, oh, so

heavy - to my friend and colleague,

Ernie Yanarella.

(AUDIENCE CLAPS)

CHAIR DEMBO: And as I said before, all in

favor of adjourning, please rise.

* * * * * * *

(MEETING CONCLUDED AT 5:10 P.M.)

* * * * * * *

STATE OF KENTUCKY )

)

COUNTY OF FAYETTE )

I, MARLA FRYE, Certified Shorthand

Reporter, BCR, and the undersigned Notary Public, in

and for the State of Kentucky at Large, certify that

the foregoing transcript of the captioned meeting of

the University of Kentucky Senate is a true,

complete and accurate transcript of said proceedings

as taken down in stenotype by me and later reduced

to computer-aided transcription under my direction,

and the foregoing is a true record of these

proceedings.

I further certify that I am not employed

by nor related to any member of the University of

Kentucky Senate, and I have no personal interest in

any matter before this Council.

My commission expires: January 23, 2007.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunder set

my hand and seal of office on this the _____ day of

___________________, 2004.

__________________________

MARLA FRYE, CSR, BCR

NOTARY PUBLIC

STATE-AT-LARGE

K E N T U C K Y