University Senate Minutes
March 8, 2004
The
University Senate met on
Members
absent: Ambrose*, Austin*, Bacon,
Baldwin, Barnett, Bhavsar, Blandford*,
Brothers, Brown, Brunn, Butler, Cavagnero,
Cibulka, Cibull*, Cohen,
Deem, Desai*, Diedrichs, Duffy*, Duke*, Fink*, Flournoy, Gaetke*, Garen, Garkovich, Garrity*, Gentry, Haist, Hanson,
Hardy*, Hensley*, Hoffman, Kaalund, Kerley, Kovarik, Lesnaw, Lester, Lewin, Lindlof, C. Martin*, M. Martin, Mazur, McCormick*,
Michael*, Mobley, Mohney, Noonan*, Perry, Purdue*,
Ray*, Roberts, Robinson, Roland, Schomaker, Sharpe,
Shay, Siemer, S. Smith, V. Smith, Staben*,
Staten*, Storm, Sudharshan, Swetnam,
Terrell, Todd, Tsang, Vasconez, Vestal, Wade*,
Walker, Watts, Weis, Whitescarver*, C. Williams, E.
Williams, Wilson, Witt, Zentall, Zoll.
*Excused
absence.
1. Approval of the Minutes from December
2003 and February
2004
The minutes
from the past two Senate meetings were approved as written.
The Chair
thanked Kim Judd, the Treasurer of the Staff Senate, for serving as honorary
Sergeant-at-Arms for the day.
The Chair
asked the Senators from LCC for an update on the reorganization of LCC. Womack reported that four or five bills were
presented to the legislature. She said
that LCC supported all of the bills, except the one that would delay the
decision for another year, since it could jeopardize LCC’s
accreditation.
The Chair
reported that nominations for the Board of Trustees faculty representative
position will be accepted until
2. Provost’s Annual Address
The Provost
addressed the Senate on a variety of issues, including funding shortfalls from
the state, swelling freshmen classes, retention issues, the University’s
covenant with the Commonwealth, research and development needs, undergraduate
student achievement, and enrollment/graduation figures. The Provost also discussed the status of the
University among its benchmarks, the need to improve faculty salaries, the
upcoming Winter Intersession, the progress of the Graduation Agreement, the
need to change the University’s writing requirement, the University’s quest for
top-20 status, tuition increases, budget cuts, the re-organization of LCC, the
need to decrease the use of part-time instructors, the possibility of creating
a College of Public Health, and a variety of paradoxes confronting higher
education in Kentucky. The presentation
is available on the web by visiting http://www.uky.edu/Provost/senate/presentation.html
and the full text will be available in the March 2004 transcript.
Grossman
asked if progress has been made concerning the cuts service units receive
resulting in increases prices for those services to academic units. The Provost replied that non-academic units
receive worse cuts than academic units, but agreed that a problem exists. He said the EVPFA is working to make sure the
costs in question are responsive to academic needs. He urged Grossman to continue to let him know
about such issues.
Tagavi
asked if the Graduation Contract was now being called a Graduation Agreement
instead. The Provost replied the term
had been changed to match the wording used at other institutions.
The Chair
introduced the item and reminded the Senate that it had not been included on
the agenda. He outlined his intention to
have Dr. Eldred present the proposal, followed by Council and Committee input,
before asking the Senate if it had enough information to waive the ten-day
rule. The Chair introduced Drs. Eldred
and Rosenman and invited them to speak.
Eldred
presented the proposal and provided a historical perspective for the current
writing requirement. She outlined the
courses which would fulfill the second tier of the requirement and explained
the exemption rule. Rosenman noted the
English department’s strong support for the proposal, explaining that it was
better pedagogically and a better use of resources.
Joanne
Davis provided some insight on how a delayed decision on this proposal could
present difficulty for students visiting campus in March to register for
classes during Merit Weekend. She
estimated as many as 800 students would not know which classes to register for
unless the proposal was decided. Jacquie
Hager said the Registrar’s Office was prepared to accommodate both the current
requirement and the proposed requirement in terms of course offerings and
classroom space.
The Chair
invited members of the Undergraduate Council to comment on the proposal. Kraemer and Yates spoke in favor of the
proposal, with Yates noting an overall improvement in the quality of education
under the new requirements.
The Chair
invited members of the
Hoch asked
what the vote was at the
Gesund
voiced two concerns. The first pertained
to the need to keep technical writing available. The second was how the proposal would affect
transfer students. Eldred replied that
Business Writing is staffed by adjuncts and that finding qualified staff was
difficult, even if the money existed.
Gesund replied that Engineering students would then need to be taught in
Business Writing if not Technical Writing.
Eldred reiterated there was no money or expertise. Gesund suggested she buy the expertise and
hire the people. Eldred referred the
question to Dean Hoch. Gesund asked that
his other question be addressed. Eldred
noted the portion of the proposal that addressed how transfer students would be
accommodated, noting the existence of an articulation agreement addressing this
and other situations. Yanarella spoke in
favor of the proposal, noting the thoughtful examination given the proposal at
a variety of levels and through many committees.
The Chair
noted a special called meeting of the Senate might be necessary to decide the
issue prior to Merit Weekend if the Senate was not comfortable waiving the
ten-day rule. Waldhart moved to waive the ten-day rule. Grossman seconded the motion. Tagavi spoke against
the motion, wondering why the proposal should be rushed through this year
rather than next year. Eldred replied
that the budget was partially responsible for the rush, noting that either course
sections would need to be cut or class sizes increased if the old requirement
remained in place. Roorda
noted that if class sizes increased students would have to write less so the
TA’s would not spend more than 10 hours per week between instruction and
grading.
Waldhart
felt the proposal had not been rushed, since it had been reviewed and rewritten
for a year. Blackwell called the
question. The majority of Senators voted
in favor of ending debate, with twelve Senators opposed. The motion to end debate passed. Durant moved to approve the proposal. Yates seconded
the motion.
Gesund
moved to amend the proposal to require ENG 204 Technical Writing to be added to
the classes that are approved to fulfill the second-tier of the writing
requirement. Waldhart, Debski and Hoch
spoke against the amendment, with Hoch referring to it as an unfunded
mandate. Gesund spoke in favor of his
amendment, noting that if ENG 204 would not satisfy the second-tier then
Engineering students might have to take courses they do not wish to take and in
which they might not do well.
After
further discussion Dwyer called the question.
The motion to stop debate passed
with six Senators opposed. Six Senators
voted in favor of the amendment with the rest opposed. The amendment failed.
Durant
proposed an amendment to the
exemption clause to allow students who score a 4 or 5 on the AP exam to be
exempt from ENG 104 and to strike the exemptions pertaining to standardized
test scores. Albisetti seconded the amendment. After brief discussion DeSimone called the
question. The motion to stop debate passed with two Senators opposed. Nine voted in favor of the amendment with 32
Senators opposed. The amendment failed.
After
further discussion of the motion on the floor, Tagavi offered an amendment to open priority registration
for Business Writing to the entire University, not just Business students. Gesund seconded
the amendment. After some discussion Yates
called the question. Gesund questioned
the existence of a quorum. A hand-count
ascertained the presence of a quorum. The
motion to stop debate passed with
none opposed. Five Senators voted in
favor of the amendment, with the rest opposed.
The amendment failed.
After brief
discussion Kern called the question to stop debate on the motion on the
floor. The motion to stop debate passed with four Senators opposed. Tagavi abstained. Thirty five Senator voted in favor of the
motion with five opposed. Three Senators
abstained and three did not vote in any category. The motion to approve the proposal passed.
The Chair
apologized to Nash for having to delay her presentation until a future
meeting. Dr. Nash will return in April.
The hour
being late, the meeting adjourned at
Respectfully submitted by Jeffrey
Dembo
Chair,
Prepared by Rebecca Scott on