The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., October 12, 1998,
in the Auditorium of the W. T. Young Library.
Professor Roy Moore, Chairperson of the Senate Council presided.
Members absent were: Kimberly Anderson*, Sammy Anderson, Joseph Anthony,
Leon Assael, Suketu Bhavsar, Brian Biermann, Deborah Blades, Iva Boyatt*,
Fitzgerald Bramwell, Eugene Bruce*, Joseph Burch, Lauretta Byars, Edward
Carter, Jordan Cohen, Mary Davis*, George DeBin, Henri DeHahn*, Eric Drake,
Juanita Fleming, Richard Furst, Larry Grabau*, Philip Greasley, Howard
Grotch, David Hamilton, Debra Harley, Patrick Herring, James Holsinger,
Craig Infanger, Mike Inman, Jamshed Kanga, Alan Kaplan*, Edward Kasarskis,
Scott Kelley*, Richard Kermode, Michael Lach, Thomas Lester, C. Oran
Little, Donald Madden*, Jason Miller, David Mohney, William O'Connor, James
S. Parker, Thomas Robinson, Elizabeth Rompf*, Avinash Sathaye*, Michael
Schlossberg, Robert Schwemm, Robert Shay, Steven Skinner*, David Stockham,
Thomas Troland, Henry Vasconez*, George Wagner*, William Wagner, Nick West,
Charles Wethington*, Paul Willis, Eugene Williams, Lionell Williamson,
Emery Wilson, Ernest Yanarella*.
The Chair called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone to the October
Senate Meeting.
Chairperson Moore stated that the minutes of September 14, 1998 had been
circulated. There were no corrections or revisions and the minutes were
approved as circulated.
The Chair made the following announcements:
I would like to welcome the newly elected senators for Lexington Community
College: Nolen Embry, Charles Coulston, Joseph Anthony, Randolph
Hollingsworth, Vicki Wilson, Sandra Carey, Iva Boyatt, Eileen Abel, and
James Matchuny.
* Absence Explained
If you did not sign in, that is a part of the formality. There is a
signup sheet outside the door. That is the way we know you are here.
There is a correction to the University calendar for the year 2001. The
correction is that Spring break will be the tenth week instead of the
eleventh. The week of March 12 - 16, 2001 instead of March 19-23, 2001.
There will be a skeletal calendar attached to the minutes. (See Attachment
11.)
If some of you did not receive certain agenda items, it was due to a
miscommunication with duplicating. It was not the fault of the Senate
Council or the Registrar's Office and the problem has now been corrected.
The Chair recognized Professor Lee Meyer, Vice-chair of the Senate Council
for introduction of the first agenda item.
ACTION ITEM 1 - Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section VI -
6.1.3. (See Attachment 1.)
Professor Meyer introduced the item and recommended approval on behalf of
the Senate Council.
Professor Hans Gesund (Engineering) said he would like to propose an
editorial change, changing the word "sex" to "gender."
Professor Joan Callahan (Political Science) stated that the word sex
should be left in. It usually refers to the distinction between male and
female and gender refers to the distinction between masculine present tense
and feminine present tense. Someone can not be downgraded on the basis of
whether they are male or female.
Professor Gesund asked for a vote to insert the editorial change.
The vote to change the word "sex" to "gender" failed in a voice vote.
The proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.
ACTION ITEM 2 - Amendments to University Senate Rules, Section 1 - 1.2.2
and following. Proposal to convey voting rights in the University Senate
to the President of SGA and proposal to change ex officio membership on the
Senate. If approved, the proposals will be forwarded to the Administration
for appropriate modifications in the Governing Regulations. The final
proposal is to convey voting rights on the Senate Council to the President
of SGA and to clarify voting status of the faculty members of the Board of
Trustees on the Senate Council. (See Attachment 2.)
The Chair recognized Professor Meyer for introduction of the second item.
Professor Meyer introduced the item and recommended approval on behalf of
the Senate Council.
Professor Loys Mather (Agriculture) said this proposal was primarily
allowing the President of Student Government to vote in the Senate every
year instead of every other year. There are a designated number of faculty
representatives that vote every year, students who vote each year, and
there are a group of administrators that half of them vote in even numbered
years and half vote in odd numbered years. The President of Student
Government is thrown in with that group of administrators and votes in the
odd numbered years. The feeling was since the Student Government President
is different each year, they should vote each time. In the process of
doing that, they also cleaned up another thing, which was to clarify in
Section 1.3.1.2 concerning the Senate Council. If a person is an elected
member of the Senate Council and then becomes an elected Faculty Trustee,
one interpretation of the Senate Rules was that person would lose their
vote in the Senate Council, and this clarifies that if they are elected
members of the Senate Council and become a Trustee, they continue as a
Senate Council voting member.
The proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.
ACTION ITEM 3 - Proposal to change certain Election rules, Section I,
University Senate Rules. (See Attachment 3.)
Chairperson Moore recognized Vice-chair Meyer for introduction of the next
item. Professor Meyer introduced the item and recommended approval on
behalf of the Senate Council.
There was no discussion and the proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.
ACTION ITEM 4 - Proposal to recommend that Part II of the Lexington
Community College (LCC) Code of Student Conduct be approved to remain in
force until the University Senate acts to change those. (See Attachment 4.)
The Chair recognized Professor Meyer for introduction of the next item.
Professor Meyer introduced the item and recommended approval on behalf of
the Senate Council.
There was no discussion and the proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.
ACTION ITEM 5 - Proposed changes to University Senate Rules, Section IV -
4.2.5, Graduate School Admission.
Chairperson Moore recognized Professor Meyer for introduction of the item.
Professor Meyer stated that one of major changes of the proposal was the
raising of the admission standards. In the past, it was a 2.5 grade point
average and the proposal recommends raising it to a 2.75 grade point
average. Another important change was to require that the analytical
portion of the GRE be a part of the application. The proposal comes with a
Senate Council recommendation to approve.
Mike Neitzel (Dean - Graduate School) said that he would like to urge the
Senate to approve this change, raising the minimum undergraduate grade
point average from 2.5 to 2.75. There are a number of reasons why it is a
good idea to do this. In terms of how the University represents itself, of
all the benchmark Universities of the universities that award a doctoral
degree in this region, 2.5 is lowest minimum undergraduate grade point
average. The vast majority have a 3.0, some have 2.75, and a couple have
2.7. In terms of looking at the impact of this, there are typically
somewhere between eighty to ninety graduate students on academic probation
at any one time. In 1997 there were sixty-one students put on probation
that year and about 20 continuing. Sixty percent of those students had
undergraduate grade point averages below 3.0 and the vast majority of
those; about seventy percent, had been under 2.75. This is despite the
fact that only fifteen percent of the students in the graduate programs had
undergraduate grade point averages of 2.75 or lower. There is a link
between undergraduate performance and the type of difficulties of these
students on academic probation in graduate school. Another concern was
would there be any impact on applications from minority students? Along
with the fact that they are the lowest with respect to the minimum, they
also looked at the percentage of minority students at those institutions,
and none of those had lower minority representation in graduate school than
the University of Kentucky. In fact, some had considerably higher minority
representation. With respect to the statistics here, as it applies to
minority students, speaking for applicants to doctoral programs, 6.4
percent of non-minority applicants had an undergraduate grade point average
below 2.75 and 8.1 percent of minority applicants did, so it is really
negligible difference. For the master's programs, the difference is
greater but is compensated for in the fact that the proposal, as well as
the way that the rules are enforced now, allow for exceptions to be made
upon the recommendation of the Director of Graduate Studies. Currently,
for students below 2.5, DGS's recommend admission for about half of those
students. He anticipates that something like that would happen with 2.75
and lower change. It would cause programs to pay particularly close
attention to reasons why an exception should be made.
Bill Freehling (History) moved that the 2.75 grade point average be
changed to a 3.0 grade point average. The amendment was seconded.
The amendment failed in a voice vote.
Susan Mains (Student - Graduate School) stated that she would like to
propose an amendment that would delete the section that says submit scores
on the analytical section of the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) and
leave it the way it was. The amendment was seconded.
The amendment failed in a voice vote
The proposal passed in a voice vote.
ACTION ITEM 6 - For Discussion and Action: Criteria for Privilege and
Tenure; For Information Only: Final Report, Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty
Title Series. (See Attachment 6.)
The Chair recognized Vice-Chair Lee Meyer for introduction of the item.
Professor Meyer said that the proposal came from the Senate Council. They
are revisiting the issue for criteria for Privilege and Tenure. Last time
a decision was made to put off the final decision until there was a final
report from the Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Title Series, and the Senate
Council responded to that. The Senate Council is still working on that
issue. You have an informational copy of that with you. At its last
meeting, the Senate Council passed the first two parts of that, two general
recommendations. One was to maintain present categories of faculty title
series and the second part is to split those into two groups--one of tenure
track faculty and the other one is contractual faculty lines. The Senate
Council feels that there is compatibility between moving forward on the
privilege and tenure proposal and whatever is done here will not come in
conflict with what they do regarding faculty title series.
Nolen Embry (Lexington Community College) said that he would like to amend
the proposal. He would like for Lexington Community College faculty to be
excluded from the proposal until there is an opportunity through the
transition process to see how they will be affected and how they will respond.
The motion for the amendment was seconded.
The amendment passed in a unanimous voice vote.
Bill Freehling proposed an amendment to strike the word "regional" and
only leave "national" in the proposal.
The proposal for the amendment was seconded.
The amendment was defeated in a show of hands.
The proposal passed in a voice vote.
Chairperson Moore recognized Professor Lee Edgerton for the annual Ombud
Report.
Professor Edgerton made the following remarks:
Report of the Academic Ombud for 1997-98
Oct. 14, 1998
Lee A. Edgerton
Let me begin by acknowledging the support and encouragement which I have
been privileged to receive this past year as well as during the prior
period in the Ombud office. I remain impressed by the civil and collegial
nature with which most grievances are addressed and even more by the
genuine effort of most parties to arrive at what they consider a fair and
just resolution. Those of you who have assisted the office by providing
information are numerous. The hour of the day makes it inappropriate to
attempt to name all of you. The limitations of my memory cells make it
impossible, but I will acknowledge a representative few and hope the rest
of you will vicariously assimilate my thanks.
Many in the Registrar's office provided valuable information and
clarification. The Senate chairs, represented today by Roy have provided
frequent and valuable advice and I know that all of them join me in
acknowledging that much of that comes via the labor and effort of Cindy
Todd, whose patience and cheerful demeanor is seemingly boundless. The
Ombud office has, from my perspective, had excellent relationships with the
many Dean's offices and I'd like to thank the deans and their
representatives, who epitomize the commitment of the colleges to balance
the desire to facilitate student progress through the maze of institutional
obstacles with the desire for consistency of rules and support of rigorous
academic programs.
It is inappropriate to name specific faculty or students with whom I have
interacted, but your patience, dedication to the process, and shared
insights have made my task a meaningful experience. Finally, many of us
interface with the office through the person of Michelle Sohner. Her
compassion for and patience with those of us who arrive at the office in a
flustered and frustrated condition is often key to obtaining resolution.
On behalf of the institution, I thank you for that Michelle and for your
tactful tutelage of this Ombud I thank you personally.
The complete statistical report showing numbers of cases by college etc. is
included with the written record, but for now I'll briefly summarize by
looking at two tables. The penultimate table (Four Year Comparisons) shows
the number of cases handled and the number of contacts with the office.
The latter are often simple inquiries regarding rules and polices. A case
represents an issue for which a file was prepared and some further
consultation with students or faculty was made. While there appear to be
fewer single contacts there appears to be a slight drift upwards of more
cases. The last table shows the data over this four-year period by cases
in four categories. Of the 275 cases this past year, 238 fell into the
four categories we call the most frequent complaints. I do not discern a
pattern of change over the past four years, with the possible exception
that the number of cases related to progress and promotion has increased
each year during the period covered.
During the past two years, we've been fortunate to work with Mr. Tyler
Harrison. Tyler is completing a dissertation with the University of
Arizona in the field of Communications. He has used interviews with
students coming to our office to assess the benefits of an intermediary,
such as the Ombud, in a dispute. Only students who voluntarily agreed to
be interviewed participated, but few objected so I think his observations
are of interest to us as we consider the Ombud's function. I would like to
point out four preliminary observations of the function of the office
shared with me by Tyler Harrison.
1. During my term as Ombud, my personal perspective of a successful
resolution was one in which a reconciliation of instructor and student was
achieved so that the future academic and intellectual interactions would
not be clouded by the present disagreement. Tyler's conclusion is that,
"in the aftermath of a dispute, if avoidance is a feasible option it will
be used". He believes that reconciliation requires face-to-face mediation,
something which is used infrequently in the Ombud office. Although we
frequently encourage students to meet with instructors after a case has
been resolved, it is my impression, consistent with Tyler's observation,
that both as students and as instructors, we choose avoidance when
possible. This finding was frustrating to me personally, but is balanced
in part by Tyler's observation that most students give the Ombud high marks
on satisfaction and fairness. Having "someone of higher status" listen and
treat their concerns as legitimate "seems to restore a sense of faith about
the University overall". Emphasis here was on the act of listening, and
that seems to be a major strength of the office.
2. The perception of the Ombud as "someone of higher status" is a two-edged
sword. Tyler believes that power is a key factor in whether or not
students pursue a grievance. Except when they believe they have nothing
left to lose, most students will not pursue a grievance against faculty
they may have in the future. Associated with this is Tyler's observation
that students who came to the Ombud with the perception that the Ombud is
all powerful were more likely to be disappointed. My perception is that
the office will work more efficiently for all of us if we make it clear to
both faculty and students that while the Ombud is charged with
consideration of grievances, the authority to direct changes rests largely
with the appeals board, a body of both faculty and students.
3. Tyler reported that over 50% of the students believed they got some
resolution in their favor, although they rarely got everything they wanted,
and a few found retrospectively, that what they wanted and got was not in
their long term best interest. Tyler estimated that about 60% of the
students believed the office was unbiased with the remaining 40% split
between those who viewed the Ombud as having an institutional bias and
those who viewed the Ombud as having a student bias. In this regard, I
would like to point out that I have promoted the office as supporting the
'institution' with the perspective that both students and faculty are
represented in the institution and that we all strive to make it work
according to the rules and policies established. I believe, however, that
students responding to Tyler interpreted 'institution' as representing
faculty.
4. Time was an important issue for students whom Tyler interviewed, and my
perception is that it is equally important for faculty. The period of time
allowed to file a grievance (one year) and other technical problems often
significantly extend the time for resolution to the frustration of one or
more parties. Never-the-less, time, in some cases, allowed a mellowing of
perspectives which was beneficial to one and sometimes all parties in the
grievance.
In concluding my presentation, I would like to briefly comment about the
issue of plagiarism. It seems to me that we have seen more cases of
plagiarism in the office this past year and it is my perspective that all
of us need to give this issue some consideration. Some of the cases
reflected technical issues of helping students learn to correctly cite
materials. My personal perspective is that it is not our intent to
penalize such students with formal charges. Despite significant efforts in
some departments to clarify the rules, students often remain confused
because we do not apply the rules consistently across departments or even
within given disciplines. In other instances, based upon information
shared with me by instructors, I think we have avoided charges in more
blatant cases of plagiarism for reasons of convenience. To the extent that
we can develop a more consistent approach we will avoid frustration and
confusion among both faculty and students. Until we achieve that, I would
encourage us all to continue, as best we can, to clarify our expectations
in our individual courses.
That completes the body of my report and begging the Senate's indulgence,
I would like to go out on a poetic note, as follows.
The Ombud's Wish
"The time has come", the Ombud said 1
to summarize this year's academic trials,
to relate the sum and substance of
materials gathered within the files.
Then the Ombud paused, he thought a spell,
then peered out carefully at his peers
to see if any expression revealed out there
would validate the basis for his fears.
He looked at each face pensively,
Did any contain a set of castigating eyes,
a countenance suggesting the person might think
the Ombud just might plagiarize.
Would any think his opening line
was less than the creative Ombud's norm,
and instead see verbage pilfered from
Carroll's pinnepedal and precedential form.
So he added a footnote,referenced by
a superscript Tom Blues said might mitigate
the professorial penchant of those
who the similarity of terms would berate.
Yet academic integrity is not simply an issue
of writers avoiding embarassing fate.
True integrity requires strong connections;
requires the community to firmly interrelate.
On this the animal scientist in him pondered.
In our vernacular, the Ombud ruminated awhile
on whether we, like cattle, can only bull-y or cow-er
or do we possess potential to truly reconcile?
This in mind, he wished for the institution
that when this academic year is through
we'll all be one year wiser and more skilled
at understanding each other's point of view.
May we, as students, see that most faculty
are not really seeking students whom they may bludgeon
may we recognize the deeply caring committed teacher
who so often resides in the outward curmudgeon.
And may we as faculty not require diverse students
to fashion themselves to our own comfortable mold
but strive to engage with them in the struggles
from which mutual and enhanced understanding unfold.
1Readers may recognize the allusion, in the opening line, to the walrus's
comment ("The time has come", the walrus said) found in Lewis Carroll's
Through the Looking Glass. See: Carroll, Lewis, 1871. In The annotated
Alice: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking Glass by
Lewis Carroll; illustrated by John Tenniel; with an introduction and notes
by Martin Gardner. New York: C. N. Potter, <1960>
STATISTICAL REPORT
1997/1998 -- Lee A. Edgerton
Number of Single Contacts (Telephone Calls/Referrals) 1,402
Number of Cases Handled
275
NATURE OF COMPLAINTS
Academic Offenses 18
Attendance 7
Discrimination 5
Exams 18
Grades 110
Instruction 37
Personal Problems 1
Progress/Promotion 73
University Policy 6
Total 275
COLLEGE WHERE COMPLAINT ORIGINATED
Agriculture 9
Allied Health 9
Architecture 3
Arts and Sciences 130
Business and Economics 30
Communications 8
Dentistry 2
Education 21
Engineering 19
Fine Arts 13
Human Environmental Sciences 10
Law 2
Medicine 3
Nursing 6
Pharmacy 2
Social Work 4
Non-Applicable 4
Total 275
STUDENT'S COLLEGE
Agriculture 9
Allied Health 10
Architecture 3
Arts and Sciences 126
Business and Economics 32
Communications 8
Dentistry 2
Education 21
Engineering 19
Fine Arts 14
Human Environmental Sciences 10
Law 2
Medicine 3
Nursing 6
Pharmacy 2
Social Work 4
Non-Applicable 4
Total 275
CLASSIFICATION OF THE STUDENT
First Year 43
Sophomore 55
Junior 59
Senior 64
Graduate 49
Non-degree 3
Non-applicable 2
Total 275
CASES BY MONTH
July 18
August 19
September 17
October 25
November 16
December 27
January 36
February 22
March 23
April 21
May 40
June 11
Total 275
FOUR YEAR COMPARISONS
Cases Handled Single Contacts
1997-98 275 1,402
1996-97 269 1,489
1995-96 266 1,523
1994-95 261 1,601
MOST FREQUENT COMPLAINTS
1997-98 1996-97
Grades 110 Grades 92
Progress/Promotion 73 Progress/Promotion 68
Instruction 37 Instruction 44
Academic Offenses 18 Academic Offenses 21
1995-96 1994-95
Grades 111 Grades 99
Progress/Promotion 58 Progress/Promotion 55
Instruction 31 Instruction 41
Academic Offenses 22 Academic Offenses 24
Professor Edgerton was given a round of applause.
ACTION ITEM 7 - Proposal to create a School of Public Health at the
University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center in the College of Medicine.
(See Attachment 7.)
The Chair recognized Professor Meyer for introduction of the item.
Professor Meyer said this proposal was discussed extensively by the Senate
Council and comes to the Senate without recommendation. That does not mean
disapproval but means that the Senate did not come to a consensus and felt
that a full discussion before the Senate was appropriate.
Jim Applegate (Communications and Information Studies) moved to approve
the proposal. The motion was seconded.
The proposal to create a School of Public Health at the University of
Kentucky Chandler Medical Center in the College of Medicine passed in a
unanimous voice vote.
ACTION ITEM 8 - Proposal to require undergraduates to declare a major
within the first 60 hours of matriculation at the University of Kentucky.
(See Attachment 8.)
The Chair recognized Vice-Chair Meyer for introduction of the item.
Professor Meyer introduced the item and recommended approval on behalf of
the Senate Council.
Douglas Michael (Law) said that he would like to make a motion to send the
proposal back to committee. He had no problems with the proposal on the
merits. As Chair of the Rules Committee he sees at least a dozen or so
questions that they will have. There was a second to the motion.
Louis Swift (Dean - Undergraduate Studies) said that he appreciated the
questions that were raised. Could the proposal be approved and the details
then worked out?
The motion to send back to committee failed in a voice vote.
The proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.
ACTION ITEM 9 - Proposal to adopt the policy on Academic Facilities
(Utilization of Classroom Space) for the Lexington Campus. (See Attachment
9.)
The Chair recognized Professor Meyer for introduction of the item.
Professor Meyer introduced the item and recommended approval on behalf of
the Senate Council.
The proposal passed in a voice vote.
ACTION ITEM 10 - Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section I -
1.2.4.2 and ff. Full text of minutes of the University Senate. (See
Attachment 10.)
Chairperson Moore recognized Professor Meyer for introduction of the item.
Professor Meyer stated that the proposal that came from the Senate Council
is to change the keeping of the full minutes so that there is no full
transcribing of the tapes. The tapes would still be available as an
archive if needed. The proposal has the approval of the Senate Council.
Don Witt (University Registrar) said that the Registrar's Office remained
neutral. It is our responsibility to provide the minutes. Since 1992
there have only been about 5 occasions where someone has asked to see the
full-transcribed minutes. It seems a lot of effort for little usage. We
want to provide the service but at the same time it is being used little.
We could provide an index with the tape so that people would not have to
listen to an entire tape.
The question was called and seconded. The motion to call the question
passed in a show of hands.
The proposal passed in a voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:04 p.m.
Donald Witt
Secretary, University Senate
ATTACHMENT 1
AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting , Monday October 12, 1998. Proposal
to amend University Senate Rules, Section VI - 6.1.3
Proposal: [add underlined word]
6.1.3 ACADEMIC EVALUATION (US: 12/5/83)
A Students have the right to receive grades based only upon fair and just
evaluation of their performance in a course as measured by the standards
announced by their instructor(s) at the first or second class meeting.
B Students have the right to receive a fair and just academic evaluation of
their performance in a program. In addition to the student's overall
academic record, evaluation may include the assessment of such activities
as research and/or laboratory performance, qualifying examinations,
professional board examinations, studio work or performance activities,
behavior in professional situations, or interviews to determine
continuation in a program. The program faculty and/or relevant
administrative officer must inform the student as to which activities will
be included in the academic assessment no later than the beginning of the
activity to be evaluated.
C Evaluations determined by anything other than a good faith judgment based
on explicit statements of the above standards are improper. Among
irrelevant considerations are race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
sexual orientation, age, disability, marital status, and political
affiliations, or any activities outside the classroom that are unrelated to
the course work or program requirements. (US: 2/11/85)
Background and Rationale:
The omission of disability from 6.1.3C is apparently inadvertent. The
effect of the omission is negligible because the Academic Ombud has the
authority under the Board of Trustees policy to deal with discrimination
complaints by students with disabilities. This revision would simply bring
the rule in line with actual practice.
Implementation: Immediate
US Agenda Item: USR: VI-6.1.3, Academic Evaluation
ATTACHMENT 2
AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday, 12 October 1998 at 3:00 PM.
Amendments to University Senate Rules, Section I - 1.2.2 and following.
Proposal to convey voting rights in the University Senate to the President
of SGA and proposal to change ex officio membership on the Senate. If
approved, the proposals will be forwarded to the Administration for
appropriate modifications in the Governing Regulations. The final proposal
is to convey voting rights on the Senate Council to the President of SGA
and to clarify voting status of the faculty members of the Board of
Trustees on the Senate Council.
Proposals: (delete materials in brackets; add underlined materials)
1.2.2 COMPOSITION
As specified in the Governing Regulations, Part IV, the University Senate
is composed of both elected and ex officio membership. The elected
membership shall number [113] 114, of which 94 members shall represent the
faculty, [18] 19 shall represent the student body, and one shall represent
the emeriti faculty. (US:10/12/81 and BofT:4/6/82; US: 3/20/89 and BoT:
8/22/89; US: 3/9/98 and BoT: 4/7/98)
1.2.2.2 Elected Student Membership The [18] 19 elected student membership
shall consist of the President of the Student Government Association and
[represent the members] representatives of the full-time student body in
the various colleges including Lexington Community College and the Graduate
School of the University System. The colleges and the Graduate School each
shall have one student representative. Students with no declared major
shall be represented through the College of Arts and Sciences. (US:10/12/81
and BofT:4/6/82; US: 3/9/98 & BoT: 4/7/98)
A Eligibility: Each elected [student member] college representative shall
be a junior, senior, or graduate or professional student, or in the case of
LCC, sophomore standing, and shall not be on either academic or
disciplinary probation.
1.2.2.4 Ex Officio Membership: Voting The ex officio voting members shall
number 13 or 12 [14]. In academic years beginning with an even number
(e.g., 1984-1985, 1986-1987), this group shall be composed of the
following: Chancellor for the Medical Center, Vice President for Research
and Graduate Studies, Director of Libraries, the Dean of Undergraduate
Studies, [Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for the Community College
System] Director of Teaching and Learning Center, and Deans of the Colleges
of Allied Health Professions, Architecture, Communications and Information
Studies, Dentistry, Education, Engineering, Law, and Social Work. In
academic years beginning with an odd number, the ex officio voting members
shall be the following: Chancellor for the Lexington Campus, [Chancellor
for the Community College System] President of the Lexington Community
College, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for the Medical Center, the
Dean of the Graduate School, [the President of the Student Government
Association,] and the Deans of the Colleges of Agriculture, Arts and
Sciences, Business and Economics, Fine Arts, Human Environmental Sciences,
[Library and Information Science,] Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy.
(US:10/12/81 and BofT:4/6/82; US: 11/10/86; US:4/13/87 and BofT:9/15/87)
1.3.1.2 Composition The Senate Council shall be composed as follows: the
elected membership shall include nine (9) members chosen by and from the
faculty membership of the University Senate, The President of the Student
Government Association, and two (2) members elected by and from the newly
elected student membership of the University Senate; the [student and]
faculty members of the Board of Trustees, who, if they are not elected
members of the Senate Council, and the immediate past chair of the Senate
Council shall be ex officio non-voting members. Six elected members shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. (US:1 0/1 0/77)
B Elected Student Membership
1. Terms--The two [E]elected student members of the Council and the
President of the Student Government Association shall serve terms of one
(1) year commencing July 1 following their election and continuing until
their successors are elected and qualify.
2. Election--The two (2) elected student members of the Council shall be
chosen annually in the second semester of the academic year. As soon as
possible after the election of the student members of the Senate during the
second semester, the President of the Student Government Association shall
assemble these persons to elect the student members of the Senate Council
by majority vote.
Rationale:
Currently, the SGA President serves as an ex-officio member of both the
Senate and the Senate Council. In the Senate, he/she is grouped with
several administrators whose voting rights alternate each year, voting only
in academic years which begin with an odd number. While this arrangement
makes sense in the case of administrators who typically serve in their
respective capacities for a number of years, it make little sense in the
case of the SGA President who is elected for a one-year term.
Voting privilege should be extended to the SGA President in the Senate and
on the Senate Council. The SGA President is the only member in the Senate
and the Senate Council that is elected by and represents all students.
Unlike the other student representatives who have a responsibility to their
particular colleges, the SGA President must speak on behalf of all 30,000
students. The responsibilities of the SGA President, the limited term of
the office, and the value of student input into university decisions merits
a change in policy.
The proposal to add the Director of the Teaching and Learning Center was
suggested because this is an administrative position comparable to the
Director of Libraries, who serves ex officio. The other changes in the ex
officio membership are editorial.
Note: If approved, recommendations I - 1.2.2, 1.2.2.2 and 1.2.2.4 will be
forwarded to the Administration for inclusion in the Governing Regulations.
Recommendations I - 1.3.1.2 and B. under that section will be codified into
the Senate Rules.
Implementation Date: Upon approval
US Agenda: Voting Rights SGAPres 10.12.98
ATTACHMENT 3
AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday, October 12, 1998. Proposal
to change certain Election Rules, Section 1, University Senate Rules.
Background:
One of the tasks of the Rules & Elections committee is to supervise the
election of members of the University Senate and Senate Council as well as
Faculty Trustees. Based on our experience over the past few years, we
recommend the following changes in the Senate Rules in the following five
areas. The Senate Council concurs.
1. Nomination for Faculty Trustee
Senate Rule 1.5.2 requires a cumbersome "nominating" process. Each eligible
faculty member may nominate up to two nominees, and these nominations are
to be rank-ordered, with votes weighted accordingly, and the six nominees
with the highest vote totals are placed on a ballot. Normally, between 20
and 50 individuals are nominated. The Committee believes that this
nominating process serves very little purpose, especially when compared
with the four to six person-hours needed to record and score the votes from
the several hundred faculty who vote each year. The following proposal
would place everyone nominated on a first election ballot, without
biographical sketches. The five individuals receiving the most votes would
be placed on a second ballot, which would be accompanied with biographical
sketches, and the remainder of the election would proceed according to
current rules.
Proposal: The fourth and fifth paragraphs of Rule 1.5.2 should be modified
as follows (existing language unchanged is in ordinary type, deletions are
struck and additions are underlined).
1.5.2 Elections shall be by secret ballot and shall be conducted by the
Secretary of the University Senate from rosters prepared and certified as
specified above. The Secretary shall submit to the eligible voters a
complete list of members eligible for election together with a nominating
ballot on which a member shall nominate his first and second choice may
nominate one or two eligible members. Nominations may be submitted to the
Secretary of the University Senate in writing or by fax, or e-mail, and
need contain only the name(s) of the nominee(s) and the nominator. All
candidates so nominated shall be placed on a first election ballot, on
which each member shall vote for one candidate. Ballots not indicating
first and second choices shall be invalid. From those nominated (weighting
first choices as 2 and second choices as 1) the Secretary of the Senate
shall place six (6) persons receiving the highest number of votes on the
elections ballot. The five candidates receiving the highest number of votes
will be placed on a second election ballot. A short biographical sketch of
each candidate shall accompany the second election ballot. If no person
receives a majority vote on the first second ballot, the Secretary of the
Senate shall place on a second third ballot the names of the three
individuals who received the highest number of votes on the first second
ballot. In the event of a tie for fifth place on the first ballot or a tie
for third place on the first second ballot, the names of all persons
receiving the same number of votes for third that place shall be placed on
the subsequent ballot.
On the second third ballot, [continue with remainder of fifth paragraph
unchanged].
2. Nominations
Rule 1.5.2 (just discussed) and Rule 1.2.2.1(B), governing election of
members of the Senate, provide for nominations to be received by the
Secretary of the Senate. Rule 1.2.2.1(B) specifies that such nominations
shall be "by letter," and Rule 1.5.2 has no limitation. In the past, the
Secretary has accepted nominations by fax e-mail, and telephone. We believe
that all these methods are acceptable, so long as the eligibility of the
nominator is confirmed by the Secretary. In addition, the nomination
"letters" have sometimes been quite lengthy. Since no qualifications other
than eligibility are relevant at this stage, we believe the rules should
state that no information other than the name of the person being nominated
is necessary.
Proposal: This modification is made already to proposed Rule 1.5.2 above.
Rule 1.2.2.1(B) should be modified by striking from the second sentence of
the second paragraph the words "by a letter" and inserting the following
new sentence immediately thereafter:
1.2.2.1 B Nominations may be submitted to the Secretary of the University
Senate in writing or by fax, or e-mail, and need contain only the name of
the nominee and the nominator.
3. Insufficient Nominations
Despite the language in Rule 1.2.2.1 (B) requiring there to be twice as
many candidates as positions to be filled in Senate elections, the
Secretary reports that it is often the case that there are insufficient
nominees, and the Rule's requirement that the Dean or department chair
follow a procedure to generate sufficient nominees sometimes does not
produce the required number of nominees. The Committee believes that, so
long as these procedures are followed, the election should be held even if
there are not twice as many nominees as positions to be filled.
Proposal: The first sentence of the third paragraph of Rule 1.2.2.1(B),
which reads "The ballot for the election of senators shall contain at least
twice as many names as there are persons to be elected" should be deleted.
4. Inaccurate Lists
Under Rule 1.2.2.1(A), lists of individuals eligible for election to the
Senate are provided to the Secretary by the "chief administrative officer
of each specified academic unit." The Committee believes that the Registrar
may rely upon these lists as valid, and if anyone should question the
validity of these lists, the matter should be taken up directly with the
Committee. Existing Rule 1.2.2.1(A) already says that, but still
individuals have in the past raised eligibility issues with the Secretary.
The Committee believes the rule should be clarified.
Proposal: Rule 1.2.2.1(A) should be modified as follows (existing language
unchanged is in ordinary type, deletions are struck and additions are
underlined):
1.2.2.1(A) Eligibility: At the time of the election to the Senate, the
chief administrative officer of each specified academic unit shall be
responsible for submitting a list of eligible faculty to the Secretary of
the Senate for certification and determination of the number to be elected.
The Secretary shall rely on the lists so provided, and in case of any
dispute, Tthe Rules Committee shall be responsible for certification of
eligibility. Eligibility shall be determined as of the time of conduction
of the election.
5. Tie Votes
Rule 1.5.2 contains a tie-breaking procedure for election of faculty
trustees, but there is no mention of ties in Rule 1.2.2.1 governing
election of Senators. With some departments being very small, ties do
happen regularly. The Committee believes that an election that results in a
tie should be repeated. Eligible voters may change their minds, and
individuals who declined to vote may vote the second time. However, the
Committee believes this process should not go on further; if a tie results
a second time, the winner(s) should be determined randomly.
Proposal: Rule 1.2.2 1(B) should be modified by the addition of a fourth
paragraph as
follows:
1.2.2.1(B) If any election should result in a tie vote affecting the
outcome of the election, the election will be repeated with respect to the
candidates with tied votes. If a tie results a second time, the winner will
be chosen by coin-toss or similar random process.
Implementation Date: Upon approval.
USAgenda Item: Election Rules 10.12.98
ATTACHMENT 4
AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday, 12 October 1998 at 3:00 PM.
Proposal to recommend that Part 11 of the Lexington Community College (LCC)
Code of Student Conduct be approved to remain in force until the University
Senate acts to change those.
Proposal:
The Lexington Community College (LCC) transition subcommittee recommends
that Part II of the LCC Code of Student Conduct "Selected Rules of the
University of Kentucky Community College Senate Governing Academic
Relationships" be approved to remain in force until any changes to those
rules be recommended to the Senate.
Background and Rationale:
As it stands, students rights as well as the disposition of cases affecting
those rights and academic offenses as well as their disposition are
different at LCC than at UK. Until we investigate those differences and
their rationales, it seems cogent to leave the standing LCC rules in place.
The proposal comes from the LCC transition team and has Senate Council
approval.
Implementation: Immediate
US Agenda Item: Part II of the LCC Code: 10.12.98
ATTACHMENT 5
AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday, 12 October 1998 at 3:00 PM.
Proposed changes to University Senate Rules, Section IV -4.2.5, Graduate
School Admissions
Proposal:
Note that italicized words indicate additions and square bracketed words
mark deletions.
4.2.5 GRADUATE SCHOOL [A student who is a graduate of a fully accredited
institution of higher learning and has a grade point average of 2.5 on a
basis of 4.0 may apply for admission to the Graduate School.] Students
seeking admission to the University of Kentucky Graduate School must hold a
baccalaureate degree from a fully accredited institution of higher
learning. All applicants for admission to a graduate degree program must
have an undergraduate grade point standing of at least 2.75, and a graduate
grade point standing (if applicable) of at least 3.0 on a basis of 4.0.
Furthermore, all applicants must submit scores on the verbal, quantitative,
and analytical portions of the aptitude section of the Graduate Record
Examination (GRE). This rule may be waived in individual cases upon
recommendation of the Director of Graduate Studies in an individual
department or program. However, in cases where GRE waivers are granted, the
GRE scores must be submitted before the end of the first semester of
graduate study. The advanced portion of the GRE may be required by
individual (departments or] programs. [if they so desire.] A student with a
grade point average of less than 2.75 [2.5] or a graduate of a
non-accredited institution may be admitted, or provisionally admitted, only
after the [Graduate Record Examination] GRE and other evidence acceptable
to the program [department] and the Dean of the Graduate School is
submitted indicating that the student is capable of doing satisfactory
graduate work. Individual [departments] programs may establish higher
requirements.
Background: At the 9 February 1998 meeting of the University Senate, this
proposal was considered and sent back for additional information. Attached
find the response of the Dean of the Graduate School to the Senate's
request. The Senate Council considered the information set forth in
Nietzel's memo and recommends approval of the Admissions proposal.
Rationale: A periodic review of the Graduate School Admissions criteria
compared to the benchmark institutions revealed that the standards at UK
are low. The proposed changes will bring the admissions criteria at UK more
in line with our benchmark institutions.
The proposed changes were recommended by the Graduate Council ad hoc
Committee on Admissions Standards and have been approved by the Graduate
Faculty, the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards, and the
Senate Council, and are recommended to the Senate for adoption.
Note: If approved, the proposal will be forwarded to the Rules Committee
for codification
Implementation Date: Fall Semester, 1999
Attachment
US Agenda Item: Graduate School Admissions, 10.12.98
Research and Graduate Studies
The Graduate School
Patterson Office Tower
Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0027
FAX: 606-323-1928
March 23, 1998
MEMO
To: Senate Council
From: Mike Nietzel, Dean
The Graduate School
Subject: Increase in UGPA Standard for Graduate School Admission
At a recent meeting of the University Senate, consideration was given to a
recommendation that the minimum UGPA for admission to a University of
Kentucky graduate program be raised from the current 2.5 to 2.75. This
standard would not apply to post-baccalaureate students, and, as is the
case now, it may be waived on the recommendation of a DGS.
The Senate wanted additional information about the proposal, which had
previously received unanimous approval by the Graduate Faculty. Questions
were also raised about the impact of the proposed change on admissions and
certain categories of students.
I would like to respond to each of these topics and would request that the
Council take this proposal back to the University Senate with a
recommendation for approval as soon as possible.
I. Rationale
A. The basic rationale for raising admissions standards is, of course, to
assure that the University is admitting students for graduate education who
have a level of educational attainment that suggests they will succeed at
advanced study. Fundamentally, this is the same rationale that directs
selective admissions at the undergraduate level. In addition, by setting a
higher UGPA minimum, the University signals its expectation that graduate
students will perform with excellence. It does not seem unreasonable to
require a minimum UGPA (2.75) that is actually below the graduate GPA (3.0)
which mandates academic probation.
B. It was in this context that benchmark institutions and the University
of Louisville were surveyed to determine their minimum UGPA for graduate
school admission. No other school had a standard as low as the University
of Kentucky. It is also important to point out that, in comparison to the
University of Kentucky, these schools have as high or higher percentage of
minority graduate students and female graduate students. It is simply not
the case that setting higher academic standards is an obstacle to
diversifying our graduate student enrollments.
C. The need for increasing the minimum UGPA admission standard has been
endorsed by other groups who have studied graduate education on campus. For
example, The Committee On Graduate Education Report, circulated August 20,
1996, by President Wethington, recommended that "While admissions standards
should be determined by the various program areas, minimum standards for
admission into graduate programs should be increased."
As a result of this recommendation, the Presidential Response to the
Committee report directed the Dean of the Graduate School to "present a
recommendation which addresses the issue of minimum standards to the
Graduate Council for consideration during Fall 1996 semester." This
recommendation, now before the Senate, was proposed by an Ad Hoc committee
of Graduate Council members and was approved by both the Graduate Council
and the Graduate Faculty.
D. In addition to local recommendations, Criteria for Accreditation, SACS
states that "The institution must establish qualitative and quantitative
requirements which result in the admission of students whose educational
preparation evidences the potential for a high level of performance." In
comparison to how our peer institutions have interpreted this guideline, it
is appropriate to suggest that a minimum UGPA standard of 2.75 should be
established at UK.
E. Finally, the proposed admissions criteria retains the flexibility of
our current policy for admission to a graduate degree program. Namely, on
recommendation of the Director of Graduate Studies, the Dean of the
Graduate School may waive the minimum requirements or grant provisional
admission.
II. Impact on Admissions
A variety of questions were raised about the impact of increasing the
minimum UGPA from 2.5 to 2.75.Here are some answers.
A. Increasing the minimum UGPA likely will reduce the number of students
placed on academic probation. Of the 61 graduate students placed on
academic probation between I/l/97 and 2/l/98, 56% had UGPAs less than 3.0,
and the majority of these students had UGPAs less than 2.75. (By contrast,
only 5% of students on probation had UGPAs of 3.5 or higher, even though
they typically account for half of admitted students.) The degree to which
low UGPAs are over-represented among students on probation is illustrated
by the fact that only about 15% of all admitted students have UGPAs lower
than 2.75.
Approximately 4% of admitted students have UGPAs less than 2.5, and 2% of
students placed on probation had a UGPA less than 2.5. This initially
surprising result might be explained by the fact that the current minimum
of 2.5 requires such students to be screened particularly closely for other
indications of academic potential before they are admitted. It is possible
that a similar effect would occur with students in the 2.5 -2.75 range,
given a new standard that requires a 2.75 minimum.
B. For Fall, 1996 applicants for doctoral programs, only 6.4% of
nonminority applications were completed by students in the 2.5 - 2.75
range; 8. 1% of minority applications were completed by students in this
range. 42% of the nonminority applicants in this range were offered
admission-, 67% of minority applicants in this range were offered admission.
For Fall, 1996 applicants for doctoral degrees, 3.5% of nonminority
applications were completed by students with a UGPA less than 2.5; 19% of
these applicants were admitted. 17.5% of minority applications were
completed by students with less than a 2.5 UGPA average, and 38% of these
students were offered admission.
C. Considering the 2.5 - 2.75 range for Masters degrees applicants, 12% of
nonminority and 20% of minority applications were completed by students in
this range. The admission rate for nonminority applicants in this category
was 51 %; for minority applicants it was 76%.
For 1996 applicants for Masters degrees, 5.2 % of nonminority and 16.8% of
minority applications were completed by students with less than a 2.5 UGPA;
The admission rate for nonminority applicants in this category was 50%; for
minority students it was 52.4%.
One obvious implication of the above data is that numerous exceptions are
made to the required minimum UGPA, on recommendation from the DGS. However,
even with these exceptions, a lower percentage of students with UGPAs below
2.5 are admitted compared to students in the 2.5 to 2.75 range.
ATTACHMENT 6
AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday, 12 October 1998 at 3:00
p.m. W.T. Young Auditorium, first floor. For Discussion and Action:
Criteria for Privilege and Tenure; For Information only: Final Report, Ad
Hoc Committee on Faculty Title Series
At its last meeting for the 1997-1998 academic year on April 13, 1998, the
University Senate discussed and debated the proposed changes to AR II-1.0-1
regarding Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure. At that time,
the Senate decided to postpone voting on the recommendations until a final
report from the Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Title Series was available for
review. The consensus was that the recommendations in that report might
affect the recommendations of the Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and
Tenure Report. Copies of both are attached.
The Senate Council has carefully reviewed both reports and held discussions
with one of the co-chairs of the Ad Hoc committee on Faculty Title Series.
The Council believes the reports are completely complementary and do not
contradict one another. The Council voted unanimously to recommend the P&T
Report be adopted. Recommendations from the Faculty Title Series Report
will be considered by the Senate later in the year.
Note: If approved, the Privilege and Tenure Report will be forwarded to the
Administration for inclusion in the Administrative Regulations
US Agenda: CoverLetter: P&T and STS, 10.12.98
Office of the Chair
10 Administration Building
Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0032
Office:(606) 257-5871 or (606) 257-5872
FAX: (606) 323-1062
25 September 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO Members, University Senate
FROM University Senate Council
RE AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday, 12 October l998 at 3:00
PM. Criteria for Privilege and Tenure
CURRENT: From the Current Administrative Regulations
AR II-1.0-1
V. Criteria of Evaluation for Appointment and Promotion in the Regular
Title Series
PROPOSED: (a new section A is added)
V. Criteria of Evaluation for Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure
A. Introduction
In order to:
1. assure teaching, research and other creative activity, and service are
of high quality;
2. maintain a diverse university faculty
3. support the faculty in preparing students to participate effectively
in a democratic and pluralistic society;
4. foster rigorous professional standards; and
5. maintain a high quality of shared academic governance;
the University of Kentucky adheres to the following general system for
determining academic appointment, tenure, and rank.
The University of Kentucky is distinguished as the state's flagship
institution for research, teaching and service. The research scholarship of
a dedicated and creative faculty enhances the teaching and service missions
of this land grant university.
The balance of emphasis between [the various forms of] scholarship and
other assigned activities varies from one faculty position to another.
Forms of scholarship appropriate to each unit's specific mission within the
University should be clearly written as guidelines by the unit's faculty,
taking into consideration the full range of UK academic and civic mandates.
In the area of research and/or other creative activity, University faculty
have a responsibility for the creation of knowledge. Common to all
endeavors is the expectation that the work is original, of high quality,
and validated by a rigorous peer review process. Communication of the
work's significance to appropriate audiences is an integral part of the
University's mission. The documented quality of research and/or creative
scholarship shall be an integral component of the promotion and tenure
evaluation process as appropriate given the faculty member's assignment.
Superior teaching scholarship shall be recognized as an integral component
of the evaluation for promotion and tenure as appropriate given the faculty
member's assignment. Contributions to students learning inside and outside
the classroom that contribute to a learning environment (e.g., service on
committees enhancing instructional practice, as an advisor) should be
recognized in the evaluation process. Objective evidence of the quality of
teaching scholarship shall be included in the dossier.
Finally, service and outreach to the University, local, state, national and
international communities also must be recognized in evaluations of
candidates for promotion and tenure appropriate to the nature of their
assignment. Faculty members are expected to engage in service related to
their professional role as a scholar for the benefit of the broader
community. Documented high quality scholarship related to service will be
recognized as positive evidence for promotion and tenure.
Objective and systematic appraisal of faculty candidates for initial and
continued reappointment, promotion in academic rank, and granting of tenure
is essential. The land grant mission and guidelines listed below provide
common criteria applicable to all University of Kentucky faculty in the
professorial rank.
CURRENT:
A. Areas of Activity
Four areas of activity are important in the evaluation of faculty for
appointment and promotion in the regular title series: (1) teaching,
including both formal classroom activities and informal influence on
students' growth; (2) research and other creative productivity; (3)
professional status and activity; and (4) University and public service.
Since all appointments and promotions shall be made on the basis of merit,
the following detailed statements regarding each of these areas will serve
as a guide to review committees evaluating the accomplishments of a faculty
member.
PROPOSED: (section A becomes B and is changed)
B. Areas of Activity
Participation in any or all of these scholastic areas is appropriate in the
evaluation of faculty at all ranks: (1) research and/or other creative
activity; (2) teaching, advising and other instructional activities; (3)
professional, University and public service.
Each of these areas is essential to the successful mission of a land grant
university. These criteria apply to all tenure track faculty, regardless of
appointment. However, t[T]he level of a faculty member's participation
should be commensurate with his/her specified allocation of distribution of
effort for each area. Excellence in research and creative scholarship,
teaching, advising and other instructional activities, and in professional,
University and community service should be rewarded. It is critical that
all scholarly activities be well documented and recognized as positive
evidence for promotion and tenure.
CURRENT:
2. Research and Other Creative Activity
The individual under consideration must show evidence of continuing
research or creative activity in the particular field of assignment.
Normally, publication in the form considered appropriate for the field will
constitute this evidence. Evaluation of the quality of such publication is
imperative, and specialists in the field from both inside and outside the
University should be called upon to attest to the value of the individual's
research. Since certain types of research or creative work require a longer
period of development before publication than do others, evaluation also
should be made of work in progress, particularly in cases where retention
is involved. It should be understood that in certain activities,
"publication" as used in this document may be achieved in modes different
from those of the sciences and the book-based disciplines.
PROPOSED: (this becomes section 1 and is changed)
1. Research and Other Creative Activity
Faculty members should document their scholarship related to research
and/or creative endeavors. Common to all endeavors is that the work is
original, of high quality, and validated by rigorous peer review. Moreover,
communication of the work's significance to the scholarly community and to
the public at large is a component of the mission of a land grant
university and, therefore, its evaluation is an integral part of the
promotion and tenure process.
Evidence of recognition of research and/or creative activity and its
long-lasting merit and worth is valued. The impact of a person's research
or creative work will be assessed by the intellectual and creative
traditions of his/her discipline, as stated by unit guidelines.
In addition to the more traditional methods of presentation, examples of
creative scholarship include public performances and exhibitions, audio and
visual recordings, applications of technical innovations, and both exterior
and interior contributions to the built environment. This work must be
evaluated for originality, significance, quality, and must be communicated
to others. For example, the value of creative works can be determined
through adjudicated productions using outside reviewers and/or peer review,
publication of critical reviews of performances or exhibitions, and invited
juried shows or exhibitions.
CURRENT:
1. Teaching and Student Relations
Markedly superior teaching and advising are distinct values and should be
recognized in appointment or promotion. Recognition also should be given to
a faculty member's contribution to student welfare through service on
student-faculty committees or as an advisor to student organizations.
Objective evidence of the quality of teaching shall be included in the
final dossier. Such evidence should include: (a) reports by colleagues
qualified in the field; (b) evaluations by students and, if available,
graduates; and (c) when appropriate, the subsequent accomplishments of
graduates whose major work has been supervised by the individual under
consideration.
Colleges shall evaluate the quality as well as the quantity of academic
advising done by each faculty member. The results of this evaluation shall
be considered in the annual performance review and in the decisions
concerning retention and/or promotion of each faculty member.
PROPOSED: (this becomes section 2 -after research- and is changed)
2. Teaching, Advising and Other Instructional Activities
Teaching involves creating a learning environment, as well as transmitting,
transforming and extending knowledge. Excellence in teaching and advising
are distinct values that are recognized in appointment and promotion.
Themes for the teaching mission are to encourage students to:
o maximize use of their intellect;
o practice problem-solving;
o demonstrate the ability to think creatively; and
o foster inquiry, imagination, initiative and integrity.
o foster students' accomplishment of academic and career goals
o create an inclusive learning community in which students understand and
value diversity of perspectives
A faculty member's contributions may be demonstrated in a diversity of
ways. For faculty whose assignment includes teaching, evidence of
successful fulfillment of these duties is critical for appointment and
promotion. Teaching (and advising activities, where applicable) must be
documented through the teaching portfolio. Educational activities extend
far beyond the classroom, and the University of Kentucky acknowledges the
importance of educating citizens of Kentucky, both on and off campus, as
part of its land grant mission. Appropriate methods of documenting outreach
activities and scholarly contributions to the state will be elaborated in
unit guidelines. Evaluation of the quality of instruction and advising
shall include careful consideration of all materials in the Teaching
Portfolio documenting the multiple forms of teaching scholarship.
CURRENT:
3. Professional Status and Activity
The demonstration that the abilities of the individual under consideration
are recognized outside the University is important in evaluation, but such
recognition must be weighted according to rank. Obviously, a candidate for
the lowest rank will not be likely to have achieved wide recognition. There
are many ways in which extramural recognition may be evidenced, and those
entrusted with evaluation will use the kind of evidence appropriate to
their fields. Qualitative rather than quantitative judgments should be made.
4. University and Public Service
Effective participation in activities appropriate to the formation of
educational policy and faculty governance and effective performance of
administrative duties shall be taken into consideration in the evaluative
process. A service component is a normal part of a faculty member's
obligation to the University.
Service to the community, state, and nation also must be recognized as
positive evidence for promotion, provided that this service emanates from
the special competence of the individual in an assigned field and is an
extension of the individual's role as a scholar-teacher. In the colleges of
the Medical Center, patient care is recognized as a special competence in
an assigned field and is an integral part of the service component. Public
service unrelated to the individual's role as a scholar-teacher does not
constitute evidence for appointment, promotion, or salary increase.
PROPOSED: (sections 3&4 are collapsed into section 3 and changed)
3. Professional, University and Public Service
The activities and contributions of faculty to their professional field are
important in the evaluation process. Active interest in professional groups
of colleagues and practitioners contributes to regional, national and/or
international intellectual networks which supports the creation and
dissemination of knowledge in a field. Further, contributions to this
professional networking establish the faculty member s reputation outside
the university and contribute to the overall image of the university.
Documented evidence of professional leadership, activities, contributions
and recognitions should be recognized as positive evidence for promotion
and tenure.
Effective participation in activities appropriate to the formation of
educational policy and faculty governance, and effective performance of
administrative duties, will be taken into consideration in the evaluation
process. A service component is a normal part of a faculty member s
obligation to the University.
Faculty members are expected to engage in service related to their
professional role as scholar for the benefit and development of the broader
community. This includes local, state, national and international
populations, and the University community. Documented scholarship related
to service that is directly associated with one s special field of
knowledge, expertise, and professional role within the University will be
recognized as positive evidence for promotion and tenure.
Citizenship activities of faculty members and projects unrelated to faculty
members professional roles in the University, while laudable, do not
constitute evidence for academic tenure and rank.
CURRENT:
B. Balance and Intellectual Attainment
A major consideration in any appointment or promotion with tenure is
superior achievement in the various activities discussed in the preceding
paragraphs. While the proportion of these activities may vary in terms of
the individual's assignments and specialty, it must be recognized that
superior intellectual attainment is evidenced both by the quality of the
individual's teaching and the quality of the individual's research or other
creative activity. Ideally, individuals selected for tenure should
demonstrate superiority in all of the major criteria discussed here and,
while special circumstances may cause the weight of emphasis on each to
vary, care must be taken to insure that outstanding performance in a single
activity does not obliterate the other factors that should be considered in
evaluating academic excellence.
PROPOSED:
B. Balance and Intellectual Attainment
A major consideration in any appointment or promotion with tenure is
superior achievement in the various activities discussed in the preceding
paragraphs. [While t] The proportion of these activities [may] will vary in
terms of the individual's [assignments] assigned distribution of effort,
specialty, and job description. [, it must be recognized that superior
intellectual attainment is evidenced both by the quality of the
individual's teaching and the quality of the individual's research or other
creative activity.] Ideally, individuals selected for tenure should
demonstrate superiority in all of the major criteria discussed here as
reflected in their assigned distribution of effort. [and, while special
circumstances may cause the weight of emphasis on each to vary, care must
be taken to insure that outstanding performance in a single activity does
not obliterate the other factors that should be considered in evaluating
academic excellence.]
PROPOSED: (C&D are added following B above which is unchanged)
C. Evaluation of Collaborative Efforts
The products of collaborative efforts in teaching, research, and service
shall be
considered as evidence of scholarship by the candidate. The candidate shall
document the contribution he/she has made to the collective project and
appraisal of the candidate's effectiveness as part of the collaborative
effort should include statements by co-members.
D. Implementation at Unit Levels
The faculty of e[E]ach unit is required to develop [guidelines] a
recommendation related to its criteria of evaluation for initial and
continued reappointment, promotion, and tenure for inclusion in its unit
rules document, consistent with this [document] Regulation.
After review and approval, the dean of the college shall forward the
educational unit's recommended criteria to the appropriate chancellor. The
chancellor shall refer the recommended criteria to the appropriate area
committee for evaluation, suggestions on any desirable and/or necessary
revision, and approval. After approval of the criteria by an area
committee, the chancellor shall approve or disapprove the educational
unit's recommendation. A copy of the approved unit criterial statement
shall be included in each appointment, promotion or tenure dossier.
CURRENT:
C. General Criteria for Ranks
Although it is impossible to specify the exact criteria for judging an
appointment or promotion to any one particular rank, the following general
statements are guides for review committees.
1. Assistant Professor
Appointment or promotion to the rank of assistant professor shall be made
after it has been determined that the individual has earned the terminal
degree appropriate to the field of assignment and has a current capability
for good teaching, research, and University service and a potential for
significant growth in these areas.
2. Associate Professor
Appointment or promotion to associate professor shall be made only after an
indication of continuous improvement and contribution by an individual both
in teaching and research or other creative activity. Furthermore, the
individual should have earned some regional recognition for excellence
appropriate to the field of assignment.
3. Professor
Appointment or promotion to the rank of professor is an indication that, in
the opinion of colleagues, an individual is outstanding in teaching and in
research or other creative activity and, in addition, has earned national
and, perhaps, international recognition. It should be stressed further that
this rank is recognition of attainment rather than of length of service.
PROPOSED:
E. General Criteria for Ranks
The following general criteria for appointment and promotion serve as
guidelines for persons involved in the decision process.
Assistant Professor
Appointment or promotion to the rank of assistant professor shall be made
after it has been determined that the individual has earned the terminal
degree appropriate to the field of assignment as recognized by the academic
discipline, has capability for excellent scholarship and teaching, and
demonstrates potential for significant growth.
Associate Professor
Appointment or promotion to associate professor shall be made only after a
candidate has met the criteria for assistant professor and has demonstrated
high scholarly achievements commensurate with his/her assignment in areas
of.- (1) research and other creative activity; (2) teaching, advising and
other instructional activities; (3) professional, university and public
service. Particularly, an indication of continuous improvement and
scholastic contributions should be evident as documented by the candidate.
Further, the individual should have earned external recognition for
excellence in her/his scholarly activities. Where appropriate, this
recognition should be on a regional or national level as appropriate to
[in] the field of assignment.
Professor
Appointment or promotion to full professor shall be made only after a
candidate has met the criteria for associate professor and has demonstrated
high scholarly achievements commensurate with his/her assignment in areas
of. (1) research and other creative activity; (2) teaching, advising, and
other instructional activities; (3) professional, university and public
service. Particularly, such an appointment implies that, in the opinion of
colleagues, the candidate's scholarship is excellent and, in addition, s/he
has earned a high level of professional recognition. Where appropriate,
this recognition should be on a national or international level in the
field of assignment. It should be stressed further that this rank is in
recognition of attainment rather than length of service.
Add:
FACULTY HANDBOOK ADDITION:
Information on Policies and Procedures
Promotion and Tenure
Dossier and Considerations
The candidate and unit chairperson develop a dossier for each
recommendation to promote and/or grant tenure. Such a dossier contains
materials from the Standard Personnel file although ordinarily only
materials since the last promotion or appointment are included in addition
to the following material:
o a statement specifying whether the unit chairperson has or has not
recommended the faculty member for promotion and tenure;
o the written judgment of each faculty member consulted in the unit;
o written evidence of consultation with and related materials submitted by
appropriate undergraduate, graduate, and professional student advisory groups;
o at least three letters of evaluation from qualified persons outside the
University, which the unit chairperson requests directly from appropriately
qualified persons;
o the recommendation of the director of each multidisciplinary research
center or institute with which the appointee is associated;
o the recommendation of each multidisciplinary research center or institute
with which the appointee is associated;
o an updated curriculum vitae;
o a teaching portfolio; (excluding faculty in the Clinical, Extension, and
Research Title Series)
o a bibliography of all published research articles and articles accepted
for publication in refereed professional journals, patents, writings and a
listing of other creative or professional productivity;
o copies of publications and published reviews or letters concerning
publications and copies of materials related to creative productivity;
o copies of Distribution of Effort forms;
o copies of faculty performance reviews.
Contents of the file must include documentation related to teaching and
student relations as well as advising. To document teaching efforts, the
following are required:
o a brief reflective statement by the instructor which describes teaching
and advising assignments, sets forth philosophies or objectives, and
provides whatever information may be necessary to provide colleagues with a
context for interpreting and understanding the other valuative information;
o for each semester under review, a list of all courses taught, with the
title, course number, number of students enrolled and -for each different
course - a short description;
o representative course syllabi; and
o a quantitative and qualitative summary of student evaluations since the
last review or promotion. (For considerations of promotion and tenure, but
not of regular performance evaluation, department and/or college norms and
rating scale must be included.)
The following are suggested but not required:
o materials prepared for teaching activities, such as assignments,
exercises, handouts, examinations or other assessment materials;
o indicators of student learning, such as examples of graded work,
reference to students who succeed in advanced courses of study and/or who
earn academic awards, accomplishments of former students, and evidence of
learning by the use of pre- and post-testing procedures;
o evidence of peer regard: colleague class visitation reports, and peer
evaluations of course content, materials, assignments, and practices;
o documentation of teaching-related activity: curriculum and course
development, consulting work, innovative teaching methods, participation in
teaching programs of other units or at other universities;
o evidence of recognition: teaching-related grants, publications related to
teaching and advising, teaching awards and honors; and
o enumeration and description of work with individual students: supervision
of Honors students, independent or experiential learning, consultation with
students outside the department.
Where advising is a portion of the faculty member's usual assignment,
evaluation should include the extent of advising and its quality along with
an indication of the grounds for evaluation, including the following
required items:
o a section of the reflective statement which describes the nature and
extent of advising and any other information necessary to provide
colleagues with a context for evaluation of advising;
o for each semester under review, the number and level of undergraduate and
graduate program advisees, and a list of masters and doctoral students for
whom the instructor served as a member of a thesis or advisory committee;
o a list of those students for whom the professor served as preceptor, or
director of a thesis or dissertation; and
o a summary of activities associated with student organizations and service
on student-faculty committees.
Suggested, but not required are:
o student evaluation of advising; and
o evaluation of advising by unit colleagues or administrators.
Add:
Illustrations of possible activities to be included in the dossier and
evaluated
To illustrate activities which help fulfill the tripartite mission of the
land grant university and which could be incorporated into criteria for
evaluation of promotion and tenure dossiers for faculty the following is
provided. These criteria must be tailored to the opportunities for
scholarship that exist within each unit or field.
Appendix
To illustrate activities which help fulfill the tripartite mission of this
land grant university, academic units should consider the following in
developing their guidelines for initial and continued reappointment,
promotion in academic rank, and granting of tenure. These criteria should
be tailored to the opportunities for scholarship that exist within each
unit s field.
Research and Other Creative Activity
Examples of research and other creative activity include, but are not
limited to:
o publication of work in appropriate outlets;
o invitations to present work at colloquial symposia, workshops, and
conferences;
o publication of review articles and book chapters;
o authorship or editorship of books;
o citation of person's work by other scholars;
o garnering competitive research grants and contracts, as well as
documenting extramural proposals which reflect scholarly quality;
o the creation and archiving of research data, technology, materials or
procedures;
o development of intellectual property, such as inventions, patents,
release of plant varieties, etc.; and
o documented evidence that one's research has been applied by others.
Teaching, Advising, and Other Instructional Activities
Examples of teaching, advising, and other instructional activities include,
but are not limited to:
o contributions to faculty governance of curriculum;
o academic program development and administration;
o classroom instructional performance;
o innovative pedagogy;
o creative delivery of teaching programs independent of time and location,
to reach diverse or non-traditional student populations;
o academic advising and career counseling;
o integrative scholarship;
o student-faculty relations and welfare through service on student-faculty
committees or as advisor to student's honor and professional organizations;
o recruitment and mentoring undergraduate and graduate students;
o independent study programs for students;
o critiques of fine, applied, and performing arts projects;
o extending University programs and expertise to public;
o counseling practitioners in their field of expertise; and
o leadership to improve instructional programming, techniques and learning
aids.
o directing research of graduate students, postdoctoral personnel, and
visiting scholars;
Professional, University, and Public Service Activities
Examples of professional, University, and public service activities
include, but are not limited to:
o evidence of professional activities, contributions, and leadership;
o awards and honors received from international, national, regional, and
local peers, or professional organizations for scholarly work;
o international, national, regional, and local awards and honors received
by graduate and undergraduate students who do research, teaching, or
service activities while under the candidate s direction;
o editorial service or other invitations to review or adjudicate the work
of others;
o Extension programming;
o clinical service;
o diagnostic and analytical services;
o information services;
o unsalaried service as consultant, advisor, or expert participant;
o preparation of public information materials and commentary, including
public lectures;
o service to the public through contributions to public policy;
o enhancement of community and state programs;
o assistance with solving problems of communities or the state;
o integration of knowledge or technology which leads to new applications or
interpretations of research data and/or helps solve problems;
o international development;
o contributions to public relations of the University;
o contributions to public awareness of teaching, research and service
programs; and
o involvement in faculty governance.
Background and Rationale
The Senate Task Force on Promotion and Tenure devoted academic year 1996-97
to a review of the promotion and tenure system at the University. Their
report provided a number of proposed revisions which the Senate Council has
reviewed and forwarded to the Senate over the course of this academic year.
This proposal is a significant revision in the criteria for promotion and
tenure. The task force intended to broaden and make more explicit the types
of scholarship (e.g., the scholarship of discovery, teaching, application)
that could be evaluated as a basis for promotion and tenure. In addition it
sought to provide better guidance to those seeking promotion and tenure.
Finally, it sought to make explicit the role of the academic unit and the
University respectively in the process.
If approved, this proposal will be forwarded to the administration for
inclusion in the Administrative Regulations.
Implementation Date: 1 July 1998
US Agenda: P&TCompDoc #3 10.12.98
Pharmacy Practice & Science
800 Rose Street
Lexington, Kentucky 40536-0082
(606) 257-3281 Fax (606) 323-2049
December 9, 1997
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: James Applegate
Chair, University Senate Council
FROM: Ann B. Amerson
Toni Powell
Co-Chairs, Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Title Series
SUBJECT: Final Report
The Faculty Title Series Committee is submitting its final report for
review by the University Senate Council. After several meetings, the
Committee identified two primary areas for its focus - the Special Title
Series and the nontenure track series or using our newly recommended term -
Contractual Title Series. You will find that our report provides
recommendations for both areas along with some general recommendations.
The Committee supports the changes in the lecturer title series and
includes this series in its recommendations regarding the Contractual Title
Series
The Committee was asked by the Promotion and Tenure Committee to address
job descriptions for Regular Title Series or annual performance agreements.
This issue was not really addressed by the committee in depth and no
recommendations are made. Another issue raised but not dealt with is that
of mobility between title series. The Committee felt that its other
recommendations needed to be addressed along with those of the Promotion
and Tenure Committee. The other topics warrant future consideration but how
they might be dealt with depended on the outcome of the proposed
recommendations.
Report on the Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Title Series
The Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Titles Series was charged with "a
comprehensive review of the title series system, to identify strengths and
weaknesses, and develop recommendations to simplify, clarify, improve the
structure, and ultimately invigorate the spirit of the system." The
committee began its work by gathering information about series at other
institutions and the historical development of the Faculty Titles Series at
the University of Kentucky. After reviewing the background information, the
committee decided to focus its attention on the Special Title Series,
Research Title Series, and the Clinical Titles Series. The Committee was
later given responsibility to review the proposed Lecturer Series. To
accomplish this, the committee divided into two task forces, Special Title
Series and Non-Tenure Track series. Reports from these two task forces
follow in Parts I and II.
General Recommendations
1 . That the present categories in the Faculty Title Series be retained.
2. That two generic title series be created as umbrellas for all the
current title series. The Committee recommends that the following umbrella
terms be used. Tenure Track Faculty Lines to include the current Regular
Title Faculty Series, Special Title Faculty Series, Librarians Title
Series, and Extension Title Series. Contractual Faculty Lines to include
Clinical Titles Series, Research Title Series, Lecturer, and Adjunct
Faculty Titles Series.
3. That all Faculty Series positions, both Tenure Track and Contractual, be
provided all of the same rights as Regular Titles Series Faculty. These
rights include eligibility for all committees as well as eligibility for
voting in elections and the opportunity to participate in all other
decision making processes within the University.
4. All tenure track faculty be eligible to participate in the selection
process for Graduate Faculty membership*.
5. The Task Force recommends that Recommendation nos. 5, 7, 8, and 9 of the
Committee for Review of Special Title Series dated May 8, 1986 (Appendix I)
be implemented (if they have not already been) concerning the Extension
Title Series. This is in keeping with the recommendations 3 and 4 above.
*Note this has already been done.
Part 1: Recommendations on the Special Title Series
Background
When the Special Title Series (STS) was established in 1965, it was
emphasized in Dr. Oswald's memorandum to the Faculty that this titles
series was a limited one. "It was recognized that some departments have
specialized teaching needs not accurately reflected in the criteria
established for the professorial ranks and that a limited number of special
titles or position would have to be created to provide these needs."
(Memorandum dated April 28, 1965 from John W. Oswald to Member[sic] of the
Faculty)
In 1986, A committee for Review of Special Titles Series, Chaired by Donald
Leigh was convened to make recommendations on this series (as well as the
Extension Title Series). The current Special Title Series Task Force
reviewed this report but could not confirm whether the recommendations of
this group were considered or implemented. A copy of the report is found in
Appendix I.
Based on information that the current committee has collected (see Table
1), the use of the STS faculty ranges from 17-57% of all tenured positions
in the Medical Sector Colleges. On the Lexington campus (Table 2), the
percentage of STS faculty compared to all tenure tracks ranges from 3.7% in
Arts and Sciences to 47% in Fine Arts. The overall percentage of STS
faculty in the Medical Sector is 35%, compared to 10% for the Lexington
Campus. Likewise, our findings show that the use of non-tenured faculty
lines is much greater in the Medical Sector than on the Lexington Campus.
TABLE 1
MEDICAL CENTER CAMPUS
College Allied Health Dentistry Medicine Nursing Pharmacy
Total full time 70 59 609 54 77
positions
STS positions 36 24 102 31 22
%STS 51% 41% 17% 57% 29%
Tenure track 49 46 437 42 47
positions
% STS 73% 52% 23% 74% 47%
Table 2
LEXINGTON CAMPUS
College AG Arch A & S B & E Com/i Edu Eng FA HES SW
Total full 259 23 380 80 36 90 121 79 41 21
time positions
STS positions 14 3 14 4 10 13 2 37 11 6
% STS 5.4% 13% 3.7% 5% 28% 14% 1.7% 47% 27% 29%
Ext title is
34%
Tenure Track 245 22 377 79 As above 89 118 As above As above As above
positions
% STS 5.7% 13.6% 3.7% 5.1% 14.6% 1.7%
The College of Law has no Special title series positions listed in the data
received.
Recommendations
1. The Special Title Series be retained (as recommended in the Leigh
Report) with a revision of the definition. It is the feeling of the Task
Force that for any tenure track position there should be some expectation
for creative or scholarly activity. (The Committee recommends that Boyer's
expanded scope of scholarship--discovery, integration, application and
teaching--be considered in determining the kind of activity expected.)1.
The level of expectation and the kind of activity must be clearly stated in
the job description that is approved by the appropriate Area Committee.
2. The Task Force reaffirms Recommendation no. 2 in the Leigh Report that
STS should be reserved for positions having special functions and not
merely for faculty who have a large teaching effort in a program where
otherwise the faculty would be in regular title series.
3. Creation of an STS position be denied if that position fits into an
existing Faculty Title Series.
4. Criteria approved for one STS position may be applied to another on the
condition that the criteria for both are the same.
1Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. "Enlarging the Perspective" in Scholarship
Reconsidered: Priorities on the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, pp. 15-25.
Part II: Report on the Contractual Title Series
Introduction
In light of the renewed emphasis on research productivity underpinning the
quest to be a top 20 research institution, this subcommittee finds it
surprising that major assets in reaching that goal, the research title
faculty, are facing less job security and in some instances unfair
treatment as a result of their non-tenure status. This is a concern since
in some colleges the research title series faculty bring more funding to
the University than regular title series faculty (e.g. in the College of
Medicine sponsored research activity is two to three times greater for
research title series faculty than for regular title series faculty).
Likewise, clinical title faculty fulfill important roles within the
University that ultimately will help us reach that goal, and the proposed
lecturer title series will do so as well. In his recent Dean's Letter,
Emery Wilson notes that "[a] faculty member must be provided the time and
resources to excel if the individual and the College are to be successful."
Wilson states that the College of Medicine will improve not through adding
more faculty, but through nurturing the talents of our current faculty. In
that vein, we propose the following, which we envision will foster the
development of ALL faculty, and ultimately help our institution move up in
the national ranking of U.S. research institutions.
1) In view of the proposal for the Lecturer Title Series we propose all
title series in which tenure is not granted as part of the promotion
process (research, clinical, lecturer) be referred to as contractual title
series.
Rationale: We feel the term nontenure denotes a secondary status.
2) Rules and regulations of each of the various title series should be
standardized from College to College and within the University.
3a) Initial contracts for individual faculty appointed at the rank of
Assistant Professor within any of the contractual title series will be for
no less than one year. The initial appointment can be up to three years if
long-term funding is available.
Rationale: The initial appointment will be consistent with the
availability of funds to support the position and in no case may be less
than a 1-year term.
3b) After six years at the rank of Assistant Professor (6 successive one
year term contracts or single and/or multi-year term contracts totaling 6
years) a faculty member in a contractual title series must be considered
for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor and if promoted all
subsequent appointments will be on 3 to 5 year revolving contracts. If the
individual is not promoted a one-year terminal contract will be offered.
Rationale: Any faculty member who is employed by the University of
Kentucky for greater than six years must be a valuable asset to the
University and appointment beyond the sixth year should be on a 3 to 5 year
revolving contract as a reward for being successful. This will provide a
moderate amount of job security to the individual and would facilitate
productivity and growth. Continual one-year contracts encourage faculty to
keep an eye on the job
5. Revision of the Administrative Regulations regarding the STS
appointment, promotion, and tenure to further clarify the intent of the
series, expectations for appointment and promotion, and to specify both
creative productively and criteria for promotions. Some recommended changes
for the current Administrative Regulations can be found in Appendix II.
(Recommended additions are underlined and recommended deletions are
crossed through.)
6. Inclusion of a statement in the regulations that will ensure review of
the approved job description by the individual who is hired into the
position (prior to hiring) and to be inclusion of the job description in
all promotion evaluation materials. Significant changes that occur in an
individual's responsibilities/expectations prior to consideration for
promotion should be appropriately documented.
7. The Task Force recommends that when STS faculty are evaluated for
promotion and /or tenure, the evaluation committees should include members
who are the same titles series as the candidate.
market. The lack of multi-year contracts is especially concerning in view
of the recent letters to the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky from
the Senate Council and Emery Wilson, MD Dean of the College of Medicine
asking for state funds to attract research faculty.
3c) Contractual faculty must be notified at least one year in advance if
their contracts will not be renewed the following year.
Rationale: All faculty need the time to find suitable employment. 12
months is not an unusual amount of time needed to find another academic
position.
4) All full-time contractual faculty (or 11, 10, or 9 month appointments)
shall be provided the same benefits as full-time faculty at the University.
Rationale: We need to remove any regulation that denotes a second class
status on the contractual title series.
5) Professional development should be provided to all faculty in the
contractual title series and should be similar to the professional
development offered to faculty in tenure title series. This could be done
through the indirect funds generated from grants for the research title
series and from operating budgets within units for faculty in the clinical
and the lecturer title series.
Rationale: The contractual title series faculty are a valuable resource
to the University and it is in the best interest of the University that all
faculty grow professionally. The University must provide the time and the
opportunity for its faculty to grow.
6) All faculty in the contractual title series should be provided all of
the same rights as faculty in tenure tracks within respective Colleges.
These rights include eligibility for all committees except committees
deciding tenure decisions for special and regular title series as well as
eligibility for voting in all elections and the opportunity to participate
in all other decision-making processes within the University.
Rationale: This has to be done or a second class status results because
we are not providing all faculty the opportunity to participate in the
governance of the University. Times have changed, and a much larger
percentage of the faculty are in one of the contractual title series than
in the past.
7) The number of faculty within the contractual series (research and
clinical and lecturer) will not exceed 50% of the total number of faculty
in any one department.
Rationale: In order to maintain the integrity of the tenure process and
to ensure academic continuity, we must not allow any department within the
University to systematically eliminate positions in tenure tracks.
Committee Members:
Ann Amerson
Co-Chair
Pharmacy
Toni Powell
Co-Chair
Libraries
Dwight Billings Charles Mactutus, Ph.D.
Department of Sociology Tobacco and Health Research Institute
Maria Braden Jean Pival
School of Journalism & Telecommunications English - Emerita
David G. Elliott Shirley Raines
Music/Fine Arts Dean, Education
Steve Haist, M.D. Daret St. Clair
Medicine Toxicology
Kathy Luchok Lee H. Townsend
Preventive Med. & Envir. Health Entomology
Appendix I
May 8, 1986
Report of
COMMITTEE for REVIEW of SPECIAL TITLE SERIES
M. Randall Barnett
Charles B. Byers
John F. Crosby
Joseph H. Gardner
Elizabeth A. Kirlin (9/84 - 7/85)
John W. Landon (7/85 - )
James A. Knoolett
Ronald P. Monsen
Donald C. Leigh, Chairman
The Committee received its charge from Vice Chancellor Sands in a
memorandum dated September 19, 1984 (Appendix A). Chairman Leigh met with
Dr. Sands during the last week of September, and at that time it was agreed
that the Committee should also look at the Extension Title Series (Special
Title Series for Extension). The Administrative Regulations covering the
Special Title Series (STS) and the Extension Title Series (ETS) are
attached in Appendices B and C. Dr. Sands gave Dr. Leigh copies of several
Special Title Series requests, which were subsequently distributed to the
Committee members.
The Committee met on October 31, 1984 to review its charge and to plan its
strategy. Among other things, it was decided that the Committee should
interview most of the deans in whose colleges the STS and ETS faculty have
positions, as well the Dean of the Graduate School.
The Committee has interviewed the following deans:
November 28, 1984: Dean Hasan, College of Social Work
December 12, 1984: Dean Domak, College of Fine Arts
February 13, 1985: Dean Royster, Graduate School
February 20, 1985: Dean Sagan, College of Education
February 27, 1985: Dean Barnhart, College of Agriculture
Each dean was asked to give his views on the items listed below (although
not always stated in precisely these words):
Purpose of the STS and/or ETS in his college?
How well is it working? What are the problems, if any?
How should it work?
Specific recommendations?
Dean Sagan also sent a letter to the Committee.
During the Fall of 1985 the Committee constructed and sent out a
questionnaire to the STS faculty and a separate one to the ETS faculty. Of
83 sent to STS faculty 22 were returned, and, of 111 sent to ETS faculty 20
were returned. These questionnaires, including all results appear in
Appendices D and E.
In addition to the meetings with deans, the Committee met on the following
dates: 10/31/84, 4/10/85, 10/17/85, 2/14/86 and 4/18/86.
OBSERVATIONS and/or CONCLUSIONS
The following observations and/or conclusions were drawn from interviews
with the deans and from the results of the questionnaire as well as other
sources.
1. STS are useful faculty series in several colleges, although the need may
differ from college to college and, indeed, from department to department.
2. Many STS descriptions are not clear in terms of the need and/or of the
criteria for promotion and tenure decisions.
3. There is a perception amongst STS faculty that they do not receive
appropriate consideration for receiving Graduate Faculty status.
4. A majority of STS faculty believe that there should be separate STS Area
Committees.
5. ETS is a useful faculty series in several colleges.
6. ETS faculty are eligible for Graduate Faculty Associate Membership only,
renewable every five years. Isolated cases can be full members - only one
now. Role of ETS has changed in last ten years - many now involved in
research - and important for, graduate students.
7. The majority of the ETS faculty are not happy with the "Extension"
qualifier in their professorial title.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Special Title Series (STS) and the Extension Title Series (ETS) (or
special title series for extension) are needed faculty series in addition
to the regular title series, and should be retained. Further, there are
differences between the STS and ETS and the Committee sees no particular
advantage in merging them into a single series at this time.
Rationale. The Introduction to the section an the STS in the AR's states
the need well:
The University System requires the services of professionally competent
individuals to meet teaching and service responsibilities in selected areas
or positions in which assignments do not necessarily include research or
creative work. To meet these responsibilities effectively and to be
competitive in attracting and retaining needed professional personnel, a
special title Series has been established as defined below.
Some example STS titles are Applied Music, Statistical Services, Accounting
Practice, and Journalism Practice.
Faculty in the ETS have as their primary activity the promulgation of
state-of-art knowledge concerning the livelihoods of the people of the
Commonwealth to those people in an off-campus environment.
The STS and ETS are handled in the AR's in distinct sections. Whereas
rather detailed criteria for promotion and tenure are contained in the AR's
for the ETS as a whole, each STS series is established through a procedure
which includes approval of a description of need and criteria for promotion
and tenure.
2. The STS should be reserved for positions having special functions and
not merely for faculty who have a large teaching effort in a program where
otherwise the faculty would be regular title series.
Rationale. Here the Committee is simply agreeing with above excerpt from
the AR's.
3. The guidelines for the STS in the Administrative Regulations should be
reviewed and strengthened along the lines of those for ETS, particularly
with regard to the criteria for promotion and tenure.
Rationale. In the case of the ETS, criteria for appointment, promotion
amid tenure are list in the AR's, whereas for the STS no criteria are
listed explicitly in the AR's - reference is made only to the "pertinent
special criteria for appointment and promotion". While the ETS is a fairly
homogeneous series whereas the STS meet a variety of needs, the Committee
nevertheless believes that it would be beneficial if a list of general
criteria could be drawn up for the STS as a whole. Comments from several of
the deans, results of the questionnaire, and the Committee's examination of
several descriptions of need and criteria indicate the need for more
uniform standards. It is expected that the individual description of need
and criteria for appointment, promotion and tenure for each STS series
would still be required.
4. All current STS position descriptions and criteria should be reviewed
and revised in relation to the new guidelines in 3. above, with concurrence
of the STS faculty to whom the descriptions apply. The new descriptions
should then be approved by the usual process, i.e., by the Area Committees,
Chancellor, etc. Even if 3. is not adopted, this recommendation should be
implemented. In the light of this review, some present STS positions which
include a significant component of research and/or creative work should be
converted to the regular title series.
Rationale. The rationale for this recommendation is more or less implied
by recommendation 3.
5. The ETS Area Committee should have a balance of ETS faculty and regular
faculty with ETS faculty in the majority.
Rationale. Comments from the deans and results of the questionnaire made
the point that regular faculty an the ETS Area Committee often do not seem
to understand the role of the ETS and the criteria for Promotion and
tenure. Therefore in order that the ETS Area Committee not be dominated by
regular series faculty we make this recommendation.
6. An STS Area Committee (or Committees) should be established to handle
the promotions and tenure of STS faculty. The Committee should have a
balance of STS faculty and regular faculty with the STS faculty in the
majority on the Committee.
Rationale. Comments from deans and others and results of the questionnaire
indicate that the Area Committees, which are composed almost exclusively of
regular faculty, often do not appreciate the role of STS faculty and their
criteria for appointment, promotion and tenure. The Committee believes that
an STS Area Committee composed according to the recommendation could treat
STS cases more seriously and with greater uniformity, without necessarily
lowering standards.
7. Rules and criteria for Graduate Faculty membership should be no
different for ETS faculty than they now are for regular faculty and STS
faculty.
Rationale. Under current rules of the Graduate Faculty, ETS faculty are
only generally eligible for five-year renewable Associate membership. On
October 11, 1984 the Graduate Council ". . . realized that there are
individual cases that should be considered for full membership. The Council
agreed to consider each individual application and consider full membership
for a five year term, renewable at the end of the term, for these
individuals." In support of their position the Graduate Council had this to
say about ETS faculty: "However, due to the fact that their assignments
change periodically, continuous involvement in graduate programs could not
be assured." It is the opinion of the Committee that ETS faculty are no
more likely to change their assignments away from involvement in research
than are regular faculty.
6. The "Extension" qualifier should be dropped from the professorial
titles, including its use in the Administrative Regulations.
Rationale. The response to the questionnaire shows that a clear majority
of the ETS faculty do not like the "Extension" qualifier as part of their
professorial title and that this is a practice which exists at few other
universities -- it seems to serve no useful purpose.
9. ETS faculty should be included in the head count for Senate seats.
Rationale. The Committee believes that it is discriminatory towards both
ETS faculty and the Colleges of Agriculture and Home Economics to not
include ETS faculty in the head count in the determination of the numbers
of senate seats apportioned to Agriculture and Home Economics.
Appendix II
Please note: this section of the report takes the current Administrative
Regulation for the Special Title Series and suggests revised wording.
A. Introduction
The University System requires the services of professionally competent
individuals to meet teaching and service responsibilities in selected areas
or positions in which assignments do not necessarily include research or
creative work. To meet these responsibilities effectively and to be
competitive in attracting and retaining needed professional personnel, a
special title series has been established as defined below.
The University has a Special Title Series to address needs of some
departments for specialized functions in teaching, research/creative
activity, and/or other services. An individual appointed in this series
will be evaluated in teaching, professional status and activity, and
University and public service, and scholarly and/or creative productivity.
The level of scholarly and/or creative productivity which may be less than
the faculty in the regular title series, should be reflective of the
individual's distribution of effort and the type of position
responsibilities required. This series is intended to provide flexibility
for departments to meet responsibilities effectively and to be competitive
in attracting and retaining needed professional personnel.
B. Definition
The academic ranks and titles in the special title series parallel those in
the regular title series (i.e. instructor*, assistant professor*, associate
professor* and professor*). Examples of more specific special titles are
Associate Professor of Applied Music and Assistant Professor of Medicine.
Examples of more specific special titles are Associate Professor of Applied
Music* and Assistant Professor of Medicine.* The asterisk, as a superscript
immediately following a title, designates that the rank and title are
associated with a position in the special title series. Each position will
be defined by a job description that indicates the distribution of effort
in the respective categories and outlines the appointment and promotion
criteria for the person in the position.
C. Establishment of Positions and Criteria
In recommending the establishment of one or more new special title
positions and related criteria for appointment and promotion, To establish
a special title series position(s), the initiating educational unit shall
prepare supporting material which will demonstrate the need for such
positions, outline the position responsibilities, and propose criteria for
appointment and promotion to each of the four ranks in the special title
series. Where the applicable criteria for appointment and promotion have
been approved previously for the same type of special title positions, a
statement of this action shall be included in the supporting material along
with the proposed job description. After review and approval, the dean of
the college shall forward the educational unit's recommendation and
supporting material to the appropriate chancellor.
The chancellor shall, if such have not been previously approved, refer the
pertinent criteria for appointment and promotion the job description to the
appropriate Area Committee for evaluation, suggestions on desirable and/or
necessary revision, and approval. The Area Committee reviews the job
description for consistency between the criteria for appointment and
promotion and the described responsibilities and their distribution. After
approval of the appointment and promotion criteria by an Area Committee,
the chancellor shall approve or disapprove the educational unit's
recommendation for the establishment of new special title positions.
D. Guidelines and Procedures for Appointment, Promotion and Granting of
Tenure
Before an individual can be appointed or promoted to a position in the
special title series, the position must have been approved by the
appropriate chancellor. The individual responsible for hiring should assure
that the job description is reviewed with the new faculty member at the
time of hiring.
The special title series is not intended to serve as a means for appointing
and promoting, in the regular disciplines, individuals who are unable to
qualify for appointment or promotion because of demonstrated lack of
research competence.
The procedures for handling recommendations for appointment, promotion and
granting of tenure in the special title series are the same as those for
processing similar recommendations related to the regular title series
(refer or Sections II, III, IV, XIII, and XIV). However, the pertinent
special criteria for appointment and promotion in special title position
shall be taken into consideration. A referral to and a recommendation from
the Dean of the Graduate School shall not be required, however, unless the
individual is or may be involved in research and/or a graduate program.
In developing the criteria for appointment or promotion, the following
general criteria should be taken into consideration.
1. Assistant Professor
In order to qualify for appointment as assistant professor in the special
title series, the candidate shall hold the terminal degree appropriate to
the field of assignment and, where required, certification or eligibility
for certification in the field. Further, the candidate shall possess the
essential instructional, organizational, professional and/or other skills
required by the job description with the potential for growth and development.
2. Associate Professor
In addition to meeting the criteria for assistant professor, appointment or
promotion to the rank of associate professor shall be based on:
a. Demonstration of continuing growth and improvement in achieving
excellence in teaching
b. Significant contribution of service to both the College and University.
c. Evidence of professional development on a state and regional basis as
indicated by factors such as leadership, participation in professional
organizations, requests to serve as consultant, advisor, or expert
participant and/or recognition for outstanding service in the field of
specialization.
d. Demonstration of scholarly and /or creative activity through
publications, presentations, development of innovative instructional
materials and/or other activities as defined by the job description and
commensurate with the allocated distribution of effort.
3. Professor
Appointment or promotion to the rank of professor is based, in addition to
meeting the criteria for the rank of associate professor, on continued
broad professional growth and distinguished achievements by the individual
in the particular field of assignment The following criteria are considered:
a. Excellence as a mature teacher and/or supervisor of students
b. Increased contributions of service to the College, University and Community
c. Outstanding leadership and service to the profession as evidence by
national and perhaps, international recognition
d. Continued growth in scholarly activity and/or creative productivity as
defined by the job description.
E. Conditions of Employment
Employment in a special title position implies does not normally imply a
specific responsibility to engage in research to develop scholarly research
and/or creative activity commensurate with the job description.
Consequently, appointment or promotion to the rank of associate professor
or professor in the special title series does not automatically qualify an
individual for membership in the Graduate Faculty. In all other respects,
the conditions and benefits of employment related to appointments in the
special title series are the same as those related to appointments in the
regular title series.
ATTACHMENT 7
AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday, October 12, 1998. Proposal
to create a School of Public Health at the University of Kentucky Chandler
Medical Center in the College of Medicine. If approved, the proposal will
be forwarded to the administration for appropriate action.
Proposal
It is proposed to create a School of Public Health at the University of
Kentucky Chandler Medical Center in the College of Medicine.
Rationale
As it currently stands, there is no school of public health in Kentucky. In
fact there are no schools of public health in several of the states that
surround Kentucky. The closest schools are St. Louis University, the
University of North Carolina, Emory University and the new school at Ohio
State University. There are now nationally only 27 schools of public health
accredited by the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH), the
national voluntary accrediting body for schools and programs in public
health. The School will seek accreditation by the CEPH.
There are three potential student targets for a school of public health.
These are, first, students entering traditional public health disciplines
for the first time. Schools of public health are traditionally
interdisciplinary and focus their attention at the graduate, primarily
master's, level. Thus students from a variety of backgrounds from the
sciences, both natural and social, to the liberal arts, to those who hold
professional health related degrees would be attracted to such a program.
The second group of students is that in the other professional schools. One
of the hallmarks of schools of public health is that they frequently
provide dual or joint degrees, so that students in medicine, dentistry,
nursing, pharmacy, law or social work can simultaneously earn both the
first professional degree and the master's degree in public health.
Finally, the Commonwealth of Kentucky's public health departments, in many
cases, do not have well prepared public health professionals. It is likely
that these individuals, particularly if provided distance learning
opportunities, will want both degree programs and continuing education.
Process
The school will be established within the College of Medicine. The notion
of schools existing within colleges is common on the University of Kentucky
of campus. The school will be led by a Director, who will also hold the
title of Associate Dean of the College of Medicine for Public Health, as
delineated in the UK Governing Regulations.
The College of Medicine offers the Master's of Science in Public Health
(MSPH). As is common in other colleges of medicine, it is a generalist
degree without specific majors or concentrations in specific areas. It
requires a thesis and is a 30-unit masters program. It currently has seven
students, full and part time, in the program. The program was primarily
developed to assist residents in occupational and preventive medicine meet
American Board of Preventive Medicine requirements for an MPH, or its
equivalent, to take that Board examination. In many cases, the Department
of Preventive Medicine, in which the degree is offered, must turn away
students because the breadth of courses offered is not available here, but
is available in schools of public health.
The proposed MPH would flow out of the existing MSPH, which would remain a
degree option, with an academic rather than a practice orientation, i.e.,
the MSPH would only have a Plan A option.
A thirty (30) unit MPH is planned. Faculty of the unit would have the
responsibility for the development of the curriculum and proposal of
degrees as appropriate. In addition to the MPH, the School would envision
the future development of a Doctorate in Public Health (DrPH). This is the
professional doctoral degree offered by schools of public health.
The proposal has been approved by the Senate Academic Organization and
Structure Committee and is being forwarded by the Senate Council without
recommendation.
US Agenda: PublicHealth, Sch of 10.12.98
ATTACHMENT 8
AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday, October 12,1998. Proposal
to require undergraduates to declare a major within the first 60 hours of
matriculation at the University of Kentucky.
Proposal
Proposal to require undergraduates to declare a major within the first 60
hours of matriculation at the University of Kentucky.
Background:
I he attached proposal was developed by the Undergraduate Council after
having been discussed with the Lexington Campus Chancellor, the University
Registrar, Academic Deans, the Director of Admissions, some members of the
Advising Network and the Academic Affairs co-chairs of Student Government.
It was endorsed of the University Studies Committee.
Rationale:
The proposal is designed to help students make a decision about their
career and their major within a reasonable period of time. It is designed
neither to discourage experimentation by students nor prevent them from
attempting more than one career path.
Students are free to change their major at any time.
Adequate provision is made for students in special circumstances (e.g.
transfers, students returning from suspension, etc.)
Individual colleges are free to make exceptions to the policy and allow
students to go beyond the 60 hours as long as they are willing to admit the
students who fulfill the colleges' stipulations
Implementation: The policy will not affect current students but will apply
to undergraduates entering the University in the fall of 1999.
The proposal has the support of the Lexington Community College faculty and
is recommended by the University Senate Council.
Note: If approved the proposal will be forwarded to the Rules Committee
for codification
University of Kentucky
Declaring a Major: a Proposal
There is ample evidence that many undergraduates at the University of
Kentucky graduate with considerably more than 120 hours of academic credit.
Frequently, students accumulate a large number of credit hours while
seeking entrance to a particular college or major program without ever
achieving their aim or making significant progress toward a degree.
Currently there are approximately 500 seniors or juniors without a major
and without the prospect of graduating in the near future.
It appears that a large part of the problem is the current policy of
allowing undergraduates to continue indefinitely to enroll in classes at
the University without declaring a major or being admitted to a particular
program. This arrangement leads to two understandable results: excessive
accumulation of credits prior to graduation and serious difficulty in
providing students with timely and helpful advising.
In order to serve students better and assist them in seeking a degree, the
Undergraduate Council proposes a change in policy whereby undergraduates
must declare a major by the time they have accumulated 60 earned hours of
undergraduate credit. By stipulating the time (i.e. the credit hours)
within which students must be admitted to a major program, the University
can accomplish several desired ends: a) students will tend to focus their
attention on a major or career goal earlier in their academic life than has
been the case heretofore; b) students who have little or no prospect of
gaining entrance to a desired program will make plans for an alternate
major and career; c) students will save time, money, and aggravation by
graduating in a more timely manner; d) students currently unable to enroll
in classes in their major because desired places are taken by individuals
who will never gain admission to that college or program, will be better
able to get the courses they need.
For these reasons we propose the following academic policy for
undergraduates at the University of Kentucky.
1. In the semester in which the 45th hour is earned, students at the
University of Kentucky who have not chosen a major or been admitted to a
selective admissions college shall meet regularly with an advisor in order
to determine their major within the ensuing semester.
2. In the semester in which the 60th hour is earned, students who have not
chosen a major or been admitted to a selective admissions college shall
have a registration stop placed on their record until such time as they
have chosen a major.
3. The Central Advising and Transfer Center, as well as Colleges with
undeclared majors, will inform students of their academic status at
appropriate stages in order to assist them in gaining entrance to a major
program.
4. Students who have earned 60 hours and are lacking specific courses to
gain admission to a college or to declare a particular major will be
granted an extra fifteen earned credits before a stop is placed on their
record if they have a written commitment from the college of their choice
to accept them upon successful completion of specified courses.
5. Students may change their major at any time during the approved periods.
6. Students with 60 or more hours 1) who have been dropped from a college
for academic reasons, or 2) who have been readmitted to the University of
Kentucky with 60 or more hours, or 3) who are transfer students will be
allowed an additional 15 earned credit hours before they must declare a major.
7. The deans of the individual colleges will handle appeals from students
wishing to enroll in specific academic programs.
Although this policy will not ensure that all students share the benefits
outlined above, it will work toward that end and in doing so will enable
the University of Kentucky to provide better service to all its
undergraduates.
ATTACHMENT 9
AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting , Monday October 12, 1998. Proposal
to adopt the policy on Academic Facilities (Utilization of Classroom Space)
for the Lexington Campus
Background and Rationale:
In the Fall, 1966, the Senate Committee on Academic Facilities was asked to
consider developing a general policy on the utilization of classroom space.
Then Registrar Betty Huff was concerned about the shrinking number of
classrooms available to the Registrar's office for class scheduling as a
result of classroom conversions to other needs, departmental/college
decisions to take certain rooms off the list of those for general use, and
an increasing tendency toward non-standard class hours that eroded the
Registrar's ability to schedule classes.
After a number of meetings, a draft policy was circulated among the deans
for their comments. The attached policy includes their input. One issue
remains unresolved. It is not clear who will provide security for
classrooms used in the evenings and weekends and how charges for these
services, once the responsible unit is identified, will be calculated.
The Senate Council accepted the policy report from the Academic Facilities
Committee and recommends it for adoption by the Senate.
Implementation: Immediate
Attachment
US Agenda Item: AcademicFacilities 10.12.98
POLICY FOR THE UTILIZATION OF CLASSROOM SPACE
ON THE LEXINGTON CAMPUS
Last revised April 8, 1998
The following policy was developed in order to ensure the most efficient
use of classroom space on the Lexington Campus.
Students
For the purposes of this document, a student will be defined as any
individual paying tuition associated with a University course.
Categories of Users
There are basically three categories of usage of space in academic
buildings on the Lexington Campus:
1. Academic classes, activities, and events. These include scheduled course
sections, guest lectures and seminars by external speakers, etc. This
category does not include outside groups sponsored by an academic unit.
2. Administrative use. These include committee meetings, University
sponsored activities such as Merit Day, Advising Conferences, Orientation,
etc. This category does not include outside groups sponsored by an
administrative unit.
3. Student organization activities sponsored by an academic or
administrative unit. These include open houses/fair days,
sorority/fraternity rush, etc.
Space Utilization
1. Space that is equipped as student laboratories, studios, practice rooms,
theaters, computer laboratories, or "smart" classrooms is available for
scheduling by the department or college for academic-related classes and
functions approved by the chair or dean. Departments/colleges will release
any unassigned times to the Registrar's Office with sufficient lead time to
permit the Registrar to use these classrooms in constructing semester
schedules. Once the Registrar has assigned this space, it cannot be
"reclaimed" by the department and college during that semester.
2. Space that is not equipped as student laboratories, studios, computer
laboratories, or "smart" classrooms is available for course section
scheduling by the Registrar's Office utilizing an algorithm of priority
policies, size, and facility type required by the course. Unique zones may
be defined for purposes of practicality and preference. Exceptions in a
college may be granted on a case-by-case basis by the Chancellor.
3. Administrative use of available classroom space, after the semester
schedule of classes has been created, is available for scheduling by the
Registrar's Office on a first-come, first-serve and space available basis.
4. Student organizations requiring space for social or business meetings
are expected to utilize the Student Center. The new Commonwealth
Library, which will be open twenty-four hours/day may also provide a venue
for such meetings. When space is not available in the Student Center or the
Library, space in an academic classroom may be reserved for student
organizations. Such requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis by
a dean and if approved, scheduled through the Registrar's Office in the
case of academic-related space.
5. Security and clean-up costs may be transferred to the user of the space
for unique events through a fee-for-service charge. This feel will recover
all direct costs associated with the service provided. This is especially
true when the space is reserved on weekends and the building must be opened
and secured following the event. A fee-for-service rate should be
established where appropriate.
6. Outside organizations sponsored by an academic or administrative unit
may be subject to the fee-for-service charge depending upon the nature of
the event and the time scheduled. In all instances, events involving
outside organizations must have a University sponsor who is in attendance
at the event and who assumes responsibility assuring adherence to
University policies.
Scheduling
1. Departments will follow standardized scheduling hours from 8:00AM to
3:00PM for MWF classes and hours from 8:00AM to 3:15PM for TTh classes.
Departments will not be allowed to drop a particular day of the week for
scheduling classes.
2. Non-standard scheduling (e.g., a MW class that meets for 90 minutes)
will be allowed only for pedagogically sound reasons approved by the chair
and dean and received by the Registrar prior to the college cutoff for
preparation of their schedule materials for the term. For additions or
changes after the schedule has been produced, this approval must appear on
the Pink Sheet. Non-standard scheduling will not "roll over' into
subsequent years and must be requested annually.
Reassignment of Space
Departments and colleges cannot convert classrooms regularly scheduled by
the Registrar without the written permission of the Chancellor.
Plans
Implement this space policy as of July 1, 1998 subject to revisions by the
Faculty Senate Committee of Academic Facilities, deans, and the Chancellor.
space.doc
ATTACHMENT 10
AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday, 12 October 1998 at 3:00
p.m. W.T. Young Auditorium, first floor. Proposal to amend University
Senate Rules, Section I- 1.2.4.2 and ff. Full text of minutes of the
University Senate.
Current: Senate Rule 1.2.4.2 provides that "The University System
Registrar shall serve as Secretary" and Rule 1.2.5.1A provides that one of
the functions of the Secretary is:
A to keep minutes of the Senate meetings and to circulate these to all
members of the University Senate and faculty and to administrative offices
that are concerned with academic affairs;
According to a Senate Rules Committee interpretation of 4/28/98,
*The Secretary may, at the direction of the Chair of the Senate Council,
circulate only a summary of the minutes to members, provided the full text
of the minutes are made available for inspection to any interested member
(RC 4/28/98)
Proposed: The University Senate Council recommends that the Senate Rules
Committee interpretation be changed and incorporated into 1,2,5,1A to read:
A. The Secretary may, at the direction of the Chair of the Senate Council,
circulate only a summary of the minutes to members, provided a copy of the
audio recordings of the meeting is made available to any interested member.
Rationale: Transcribing the full text of the minutes requires an
inordinate amount of time and effort by the University System Registrar.
The minutes are distributed to members of the Senate but are rarely, if
ever, requested by anyone else. Under the proposed change, anyone who
wanted a complete transcription of a Senate meeting could create it from
the audiotapes, which would be readily available from the Senate Archives.
No other university body, including the Board of Trustees and the Senate
Council, is required to make a full text version of the minutes available.
The proposal has the approval of the Senate Council.
US Agenda Item: Minutes, fulltext, 10.12.98
ATTACHMENT 11
UNIVERSITY CALENDAR
09-01-97 Version
2000 Fall Semester
February 1 Tuesday - Deadline for international applications to
be submitted to The Graduate School for the 2000 Fall
Semester
February 15 Tuesday - Priority deadline for freshman applicants.
Applicants for the 2000 Fall Semester by this date
who meet selective admission criteria will be
offered general admission; applicants after this
date or deferred decision candidates will be considered on
a space-available basis only
February 15 Tuesday - Priority filing deadline for financial aid for
entering freshmen
March 1 Wednesday - Deadline for submission of application and all
required documents to the Office of Admissions for UK Community College
transfer applicants planning to attend April Advising Conference
(including registration for classes) for 2000 Fall Semester
April 1 Saturday - Priority filing deadline for financial aid
for continuing and transfer students
April 15 Saturday - Deadline for applying with college deans
for reinstatement after a second academic suspension
for the 2000 Fall Semester
May 1 Monday - Deadline for undergraduate international
applicants to submit 2000 Fall Semester application
June 1 Thursday- Deadline for submission of application and
all required documents to the Office of Admissions
for undergraduate applicants planning to attend
Summer Advising Conferences (including registration
for fall classes)
June 19- Summer Advising Conferences for new freshmen,
July 28 Community College transfers, advanced standing
(transfer) students, auditors, non-degree and
readmitted students enrolling for the 2000 Fall
Semester
July 21 Friday - Deadline for applying for admission to a
program in The Graduate School for the 2000 Fall
Semester. Applications for readmission, post-
baccalaureate status, and visiting student status
will be accepted after the deadline
July 29- Saturday through Saturday - Add/Drop for registered
August 19 students
August 1 Tuesday - Final deadline for submission of
application and all required documents to the Office
of Admissions for undergraduate admission for the
2000 Fall Semester. Non-degree students who enroll
through the Evening/Weekend Program registration
before the beginning of classes for eight (8) hours
or less are exempt from this deadline.
UNIVERSITY CALENDAR
09-01-97 Version
2000 Fall Semester
August 2 Wednesday - Last day for students in the Employee
Educational Program registered through August 2 to
submit EEP form to Human Resource Services to confirm 2000
registration and tuition waiver
August 9 Wednesday - Deadline for applying to The Graduate
School for readmission, post-baccalaureate status,
and visiting student status for the 2000 Fall
Semester in order to register before the beginning
of classes and avoid late fee
August 15-21 Tuesday through Monday - Registration for new program
graduate students
August 15-21 Tuesday through Monday - Fall registration for new
undergraduate and new program graduate students who
entered the University in either the 2000 Four-Week
Intersession or Eight-Week Summer Session
August 18-19 Friday and Saturday - Registration for Evening/
Weekend students
August 17-21 Thursday through Monday - Fall registration for new
post-baccalaureate students admitted for the Four-
Week Intersession, Eight-Week Summer Session or Fall
Semester
August 18 Friday - Advising Conference and Registration for new
international students who have been cleared for admission but did not
priority register
August 19-21 Saturday through Monday - Fall Orientation for all
new undergraduate students
August 21 Monday - Advising Conference and Registration for new
freshmen and transfer students who have been cleared for admission but
did not priority register
August 21-25 Monday through Friday - Approved time period for
students to change academic majors (note: please
check with college for admission deadline)
August 22 Tuesday - Last day a student may officially drop a
course or cancel registration with the University
Registrar for a full refund of fees
August 21-22 Monday and Tuesday - Opening-of-term add/drop for
registered students (1:00pm-8:00pm)
August 22 Tuesday - Advising Conference and Registration for
readmission, transient, non-degree, and auditing students who have been
cleared for admission but did not priority register
August 23 Wednesday - First day of classes
August 23 Wednesday - Payment of registration fees and/or housing and
dining fees
August 23- Wednesday through Wednesday - Late registration for
August 30 returning students who did not priority register and
new applicants cleared late for admission. A late
fee is assessed students who register late
August 29 Tuesday - Last day to add a class for the 2000
Fall Semester
August 30 Wednesday - Last day to officially withdraw from the
University or reduce course load and receive an 80
percent refund
UNIVERSITY CALENDAR
09-01-97 Version
2000 Fall Semester
August 30 Wednesday - Last day for students in the Employee
Educational Program who registered and/or changed
schedules after August 2 to submit EEP form to Human
Resource Services to confirm 2000 Fall Semester
registration and tuition waiver
September 4 Monday - Labor Day - Academic Holiday
September 13 Wednesday - Last day to drop a course without it
appearing on the student's transcript
September 13 Wednesday - Last day to change grading option (pass/
fail to letter grade or letter grade to pass/fail;
credit to audit or audit to credit)
September 15* Friday - Last day for reinstatement of students
cancelled for nonpayment of registration fees and/or
housing and dining fees
Requires payment of fees and may require payment of
reinstatement fee
September 20 Wednesday - Last day to officially withdraw from the
University or reduce course load and receive a 50
percent refund
September 21 Thursday - Last day for filing an application for a
December degree in college dean's office
September 21 Thursday - Deadline for submission of application and
all required documents to the Office of the Registrar
for change of residency status for 2000 Fall Semester
October 6 Friday - Fall Break - Academic Holiday
October 15 Sunday - Deadline for submission of application and
all required documents to the Office of Admissions
for undergraduate applicants planning to attend
November Advising Conference (including registration
for spring classes)
October 16 Monday - Midterm of 2000 Fall Semester
October 17- Tuesday through Monday - Approved time period for
October 30 students to change academic majors (note: please
check with college for admission deadline)
October 20* Friday - Last day to withdraw from the University or
reduce course load. Students can withdraw or reduce
course load after this date only for "urgent non- academic
reasons."
October 31 Tuesday - Deadline for international applications to
be submitted to The Graduate School for 2001 Summer
School
October 30- Monday through Friday - Priority registration for the
November 17 2001 Spring Semester
November 7 Tuesday - President Election Year - Academic Holiday
November 17 Friday - 2001 Spring Semester Advising Conference for
new and readmitted undergraduate students
November 23-25 Thursday through Saturday - Thanksgiving -
Academic Holidays
UNIVERSITY CALENDAR
09-01-97 Version
2000 Fall Semester
November 30- Thursday through Saturday - Add/Drop for registered
January 6 students for the 2001 Spring Semester
December 4 Monday - Deadline for applying for admission to a
program in The Graduate School for the 2001 Spring
Semester. Applications for readmission, post-
baccalaureate status, and visiting student
status will be accepted after the deadline.
December 6 Wednesday - Last day for students in the Employee
Program registered through December 6 to submit EEP
form to Human Resource Services to confirm 2001 Spring
Semester registration and tuition waiver
December 8 Friday - Last day of classes
December 11-15 Monday through Friday - Final Examinations
December 13 Wednesday - Deadline for applying to The Graduate
School for readmission, post-baccalaureate status,
and visiting student status for the 2001 Spring
Semester in order to register before the beginning of
classes and avoid late fee
December 15 Friday - End of 2000 Fall Semester
December 18 Monday - Final deadline for submission of grades to the
Registrar's Office by 4 p.pm.
* These dates are under review and are subject to change.
SUMMARY OF TEACHING DAYS, FALL SEMESTER 2000
Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. Teaching Days
August 1 1 2 2 1 1 August 8
September 3 4 4 4 5 5 September 25
October 5 5 4 4 3 4 October 25
November 4 3 5 4 3 3 November 22
December 1 1 1 1 2 1 December 07
Totals 14 14 16 15 14 14 87
UNIVERSITY CALENDAR
09-01-97 Version
2001 Spring Semester
June 15 Thursday - Deadline for international applications to
2000 be submitted to The Graduate School for the 2001
Spring Semester
September 1 Friday - Deadline for undergraduate international
2000 applicants to submit 2001 Spring Semester application
September 15 Friday - Deadline for applying with college deans
2000 for reinstatement after a second academic suspension
for the 2001 Spring Semester
October 15 Sunday - Deadline for submission of application and
2000 all required documents to the Office of Admissions
for undergraduate applicants planning to attend
November Advising Conference (including registration
for spring classes)
December 1 Friday - Final deadline for submission of
2000 application and all required documents to the Office
of Admissions for undergraduate admission for the
2001 Spring Semester. Non-degree students who enroll
through the Evening/Weekend Program registration
before the beginning of classes for eight (8) hours
or less are exempt from this deadline
November 30- Thursday through Saturday - Add/Drop for registered
January 6 students for the 2001 Spring Semester
December 4 Monday - Deadline for applying for admission to a
2000 program in The Graduate School for the 2001 Spring
Semester. Applications for readmission, post-
baccalaureate status, and visiting student status
will be accepted after the deadline.
December 6 Wednesday - Last day for students in the Employee
2000 Educational Program registered through December 6 to
submit EEP form to Human Resource Services to confirm
2001 Spring Semester registration and tuition waiver
December 13 Wednesday - Deadline for applying to The Graduate
2000 School for readmission, post-baccalaureate status, and
visiting student status for the 2001 Spring Semester in order to register
before the beginning of classes and avoid late fee
January 2-8 Tuesday through Monday - Registration for new program
graduate students
January 5 Friday - International Student Advising Conference
January 5-6 Friday and Saturday - Registration for Evening/
Weekend students
January 5-8 Friday through Monday - Registration for new post-
baccalaureate students
January 8 Monday - Advising Conference and Registration for new
students who have been cleared for admission but did not priority register
January 8-12 Monday through Friday - Approved time period for
students to change academic majors (note: please
check with college for admission deadline)
January 9 Tuesday - Last day a student may officially drop a
course or cancel registration with the University
Registrar for a full refund of fees
UNIVERSITY CALENDAR
09-01-97 Version
2001 Spring Semester
January 8-9 Monday and Tuesday - Opening-of-term add/drop for
registered students (1:00pm-8:00pm)
January 9 Tuesday - Advising Conference and Registration for
readmission, transient, non-degree, and auditing students
January 10 Wednesday - First day of classes
January 10 Wednesday - Payment of registration fees and/or housing and
dining fees
January 10-17 Wednesday through Wednesday - Late registration for
returning students who did not priority register and
new applicants cleared late for admission. A late
fee is assessed students who register late.
January 15 Monday - Martin Luther King Birthday - Academic Holiday
January 17 Wednesday - Last day to add a class for the 2001 Spring
Semester
January 17 Wednesday - Last day to officially withdraw from the
University or reduce course load and receive an 80
percent refund
January 17 Wednesday - Last day for students in the Employee
Educational Program who registered and/or changed schedules after
December 6 to submit EEP form to Human Resource Services to confirm
2001 Spring Semester registration and tuition waiver
January 31 Wednesday - Last day to drop a course without it
appearing on the student's transcript
January 31 Wednesday - Last day to change grading option (pass/
fail to letter grade or letter grade to pass/fail;
credit to audit or audit to credit)
February 1 Thursday - Deadline for international applications to
be submitted to The Graduate School for the 2001 Fall
Semester
February 2* Friday - Last day for reinstatement of students
cancelled for nonpayment of registration fees and/or
housing and dining fees. Requires payment of fees
and may require payment of reinstatement fee.
February 7 Wednesday - Last day to officially withdraw from the
University or reduce course load and receive a
50 percent refund
February 8 Thursday - Last day for filing an application for a
May degree in college dean's office
February 8 Thursday - Deadline for submission of application and
all required documents to the Office of the Registrar
for change of residency status for 2001 Spring
Semester
March 5 Monday - Midterm of 2001 Spring Semester
March 6-26 Tuesday through Monday - Approved time period for
students to change academic majors (note: please
check with college for admission deadline)
UNIVERSITY CALENDAR
09-01-97 Version
2001 Spring Semester
March 9 Friday - Last day to withdraw from the University or
reduce course load. Students cam withdraw or reduce
course load after this date only for "urgent non- academic
reasons."
March 12-17 Monday through Saturday - Spring Vacation - Academic
Holidays
March 26- Monday through Friday - Priority registration for the
April 13 2001 Fall Semester and both 2001 Summer Sessions
April 6 Friday - Deadline for applying for admission to a
program in The Graduate School for the 2001 Summer
Sessions. Applications for readmission, post-
baccalaureate status, and visiting student status
will be accepted after the deadline
April 13 Friday - 2001 April Advising Conference for Community
College transfer students cleared for fall admission
April 24- Tuesday through Monday - Four-Week Intersession
May 7 registration and add/drop continue for students
enrolled in the 2001 Spring Semester
April 24- Tuesday through Wednesday - Eight-Week Summer Session
June 6 registration and add/drop continue for students
enrolled in the 2001 Spring Semester
April 24- Tuesday through Saturday - Add/Drop for priority
June 16 registered students for the 2001 Fall Semester
April 25 Wednesday - Deadline for applying to The Graduate
School for readmission, post-baccalaureate status,
and visiting student status for the 2001 Four-Week
Intersession in order to register May 7 and avoid
late fee
April 27 Friday - Last day of classes
April 30-May 4 Monday through Friday - Final Examinations
May 4 Friday - End of 2001 Spring Semester
May 6 Sunday - Commencement
May 7 Monday - Final deadline for submission of grades to the
Registrar's office by 4 p.m.
May 7- College of Pharmacy 15-Week Summer Term
August 18
* These dates are under review and are subject to change.
SUMMARY OF TEACHING DAYS, SPRING SEMESTER 2001
Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. Teaching Days
January 2 3 4 3 3 3 January 18
February 4 4 4 4 4 4 February 24
March 3 3 3 4 4 4 March 21
April 5 4 4 4 4 3 April 24
May - - - - - - May -
Totals 14 14 15 15 15 14 87
Return to University Senate
Page
Return to University
Senate Minutes
Last Updated: Friday, November 20, 1998 (Prior revision: 11/18/1998)