MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, December 14, 1998

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, December 14, 1998

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, DECEMBER 14, 1998

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., December 14,
1998, in the auditorium of the W. T. Young Library.

Professor Roy Moore, Chairperson of the Senate Council presided.

Members absent were: Walter Abbott*, Sammy Anderson, Leon Assael, Anthony
Baxter*, Jeffrey Bieber*, Brian Biermann, Anibal biglieri, Deborah Blades,
Rachel Bomberger, Sharon Brennan*, Jayson Brittain, Joseph Burch, Lauretta
Byars, Leo Cai, Joan Callahan, James Campbell, Brad Canon*, Charles
Carlson*, Edward Carter, Jordan Cohen, Mary Davis*, George DeBin, Henri
DeHahn, Jeffrey Dembo, Eric Drake, Vincent Fields, Ray Forgue*, Donald
Frazier, Richard Furst, Hans Gesund*, Philip Greasley, Howard Grotch, Ellen
Hahn*, David Hamilton, Issam Harik*, Patrick Herring, James Holsinger,
Craig Infanger, Mike Inman, Jamshed Kanga, Edward Kasarskis, Keith
Kinderknecht, James Knoblett, Philipp Kraemer, Michael lach, Thomas Lester,
C. Oran Little, Marianne Lorensen, Donald Madden*, Douglas Michael, Jason
Miller, David Mohney, Robert Molzon, Jacqueline Noonan, Miles Osland, James
Parker, Thomas Pope, Thomas Robinson, Elizabeth Rompf*, Katherine Sallee*,
Michael Schlossberg, Robert Schwemm, Robert Shay, David Stockham, Kaveh
Tagavi, Henry Vasconez, William Wagner, Nick West, Charles Wethington*,
Paul Willis, Carolyn Williams, Eugene Williams, Lionell Williamson, Emery
Wilson, Ernest Yanarella*

The Chair welcomed everyone to the December 1998 meeting of the University
Senate.

Chairperson Moore stated that the minutes of October 12, 1998 had been
circulated. There were no corrections or revisions and the minutes were
approved as circulated.

The Chair made the following announcements:

At the March 8, 1999 Senate meeting, Gordon Davies, the President of the
Council on Postsecondary Education will be the guest speaker. There will
be an opportunity for questions.

There are three new members of the Senate Council; Jane Wells, Charles
Coulston, who is the first representative on the Council from Lexington
Community College, and Kimberly Anderson. The new members were given a
round of applause.

The Chair thanked the three members who are going off the Council: Doug
Poe, Virginia Davis-Nordin, and John Thelin. The outgoing members were
given a round of applause.

The next meeting will be on February 8, 1999.

The Chair recognized Lee Meyer, who has been re-elected vice chair of the
Senate Council for the next year, to introduce the first action item.

Professor Meyer stated that Professor Moore had been re-elected as Chair of
the Senate Council for another one-year term.

Absence Explained

ACTION ITEM I -Proposal to recommend individual health coverage benefits
for all graduate and professional students who are funded full time as
Teaching Assistants, Research Assistants, Graduate Assistants, and Fellows.
If approved, the proposal will be forwarded to the Administration for
inclusion in the biennial budget.

Proposal:
The attached proposal to recommend individual health coverage benefits for
all graduate and professional students who are funded full time as Teaching
Assistants, Research Assistants, Graduate Assistants, and Fellows has been
approved by the University Senate Council and is forwarded to the Senate
for approval.

Attachment

Implementation: 1999

US Agenda Item: GrdStuHealthInsurance: 12.14.98

Proposal for Graduate Student Health Coverage

Presented to the UK University Senate Council

Susan P. Mains (Graduate School)

Proposal
The University Senate strongly recommends University of Kentucky action to
cover 100% of the costs of individual health coverage benefits for all
graduate and professional students who are funded full time as Teaching
Assistants, Research Assistants, Graduate Assistants, and/or Fellows. This
process should begin in 1999-2000 fiscal year and be completed no later
than June 30, 2003.

Spouses and/or dependents of the groups identified above shall have the
option of joining the UK health plan(s) at the subsidized and indexed rates.

In addition, the Senate supports allowing all graduate students to be
permitted to purchase the same insurance available to full-time faculty and
staff, beginning in the Fall, 1999.

Rationale
The rationale for proposing the availability of health benefits for
graduate students consists of several key components:

1) One of the institution's key goals is to become a "Top 20" public
research institution. In order to achieve such a goal it is necessary for
the university to be able to attract a high caliber of graduate students;
this group will be one of the key sections of the university that will be
contributing to the increasing quality of UK research/teaching. In order to
attract the best students, UK graduate programs have to be competitive with
other schools, and one aspect of this competitiveness is the ability to
provide an attractive funding package for prospective students. Several
graduate programs throughout the US (including UK benchmark schools)
include health benefits for graduate students as a key component of their
funding package (see Table 1 on attached report). Unless UK provides a
similar service it will be increasingly difficult for the school to attract
students who have the opportunity to study at schools where health care is
either largely subsidized or provided free of charge.

2) Graduate students at UK who are employed as Teaching Assistants
(TAs), Research Assistants (RAs), or Graduate Assistants (GAs) have very
limited incomes (with an average annual stipend of $9,000 approx.).
Although paying for health insurance may not appear to be a huge cost
initially, it is a substantial burden for many students who have a fixed
income. This is particularly problematic because assistants/fellows cannot
work over 20 hours per week1 and, therefore cannot earn additional income
during the school year or receive health benefits from another employer.
___________________________

1Graduate students who are fully funded as assistants or fellows, are
usually required to sign a contract with the Graduate School, which states
they will not participate in additional paid employment.

3 ) Currently, graduate students can purchase the UK Mega Life Health
Insurance Policy, however, in addition to this extra expense, in a recent
survey many students stated that the policy is inadequate, and has resulted
in a deterioration in their health and financial situation. In particular,
the UK Mega Life Policy is extraordinarily expensive for students with
dependents. The current health insurance policy does not provide
comprehensive health coverage (e.g., 80% of allergy testing costs, $250 per
year maximum on prescriptions) and is considered by many graduate students
who are currently enrolled in the plan as inadequate "catastrophe insurance."

4) In order for any educational institution to function effectively it
is imperative that all members of that community feel that their
contributions are appropriately recognized and that a supportive work
environment is created. Graduate students are an important part of the
academic community, they undertake research, present papers at professional
meetings, undertake community outreach, teach undergraduate classes, work
in various research centers and generally, add to the dynamism of what is
known as "UK." At the moment, however, many graduate students feel
disillusioned and abandoned by their limited opportunities to ensure that
they stay healthy enough to be able to contribute to, and benefit from
their limited time at UK. Numerous graduate students feel they are "second
class" citizens within the university because there appears to be little
concern for their physical and mental well being. In addition, some
students have had to withdraw from the university because of costs incurred
due to accidents, illnesses or pregnancies, which have not been adequately
covered by the existing health insurance policies. This could then
potentially lead to a lowering of the university's retention rates, which
works against the university's recruitment efforts and is in stark contrast
to the key goals of the institution.

Note: If approved, this proposal will be forwarded to the Administration
for inclusion in the budget and Strategic Plan.
Appendix 1
___________________________________________________________________
Table A: Number of Graduate Students Currently Funded as
Assistants/Fellows by UK*
(Source: UK Graduate School Fall 1998)
________________________________________________________________________
ENROLLMENT FULL TIME PART TIME

Fellowship 344 74
Graduate Assistants 53 2
Research Assistants 347 51
TR. Assistants 229 10
Teaching Assistants 545 83
________________________________________________________________________
Total 1518 (87.34%) 220 (12.66%)

Table B: Total Graduate Enrollment
(Source: UK Graduate School Fall 1998)
________________________________________________________________________
FULL TIME PART TIME TOTAL

Graduate School Students 3,190 2,107 5,297

________________________________________________________________________

*Numbers are not currently recorded or available for a breakdown of level
of funding for RAs, TAs, GAs, TRAS, and Fellows, therefore, the numbers in
Table A reflect the total number of lines that all the existing positions
add up to IN TOTAL. This means that each of the full time funded lines
above includes a number of full time, half-time, quarter time, etc.,
positions.

Table C: Estimated Maximum Costs of 100% Covered Health Benefits for UK
Assistants/Fellows
(Based on existing coverage costs listed at:
________________________________________________________________________

Health Plan Monthly Cost Annual Cost Total Cost2
(x 1214 students)
___________________________________________________________________

UKHMO $151.50 $1818.00 $2,207,052
United Healthcare $156.00 $1872.00 $2,272,608

US Agenda Item: Health BenefitsPro 12.14.98

2If approximate number of full time students who are funded on
Assistantships/Fellowships for 20+hours/week is 80% of total number of
graduate students who are funded as Assistants/Fellows.

Professor Meyer stated that the item was a proposal to recommend that
individual health coverage benefits be provided to all graduate and
professional students who are funded full-time as teaching assistants,
research assistants, graduate assistants, and fellows. If approved, the
proposal will be forwarded to the Administration for inclusion in the
biennial budget. This has been approved by the Senate Council and is being
forwarded to the full Senate for approval.

Susan Mains (Student Senator - Graduate School) made a friendly amendment
to change the "maximum of twenty hours" to "twenty hours or more."
Chairperson Moore said that this would be a clarification not an actual
change to the proposal.

Mike Nietzel (Dean - Graduate School) said that is was actually more
complicated than that because there were students who were full-time at
eighteen hours. They need to be sure that they addressed full-time in a
way that is fair to students in different circumstances. Certainly, twenty
hours covers the vast majority of the cases, but there were some exceptions
that they would definitely want to include under the coverage that would be
missed if they stuck strictly with the twenty hour definition.

The Chair said that there was an amendment to delete the wording in the
parathesis (maximum of twenty hours). The amendment passed in a unanimous
voice vote.

Student Senator Susan Mains, Professor Mike Nietzel (Dean, Graduate
School), Professor Doug Poe (Business and Economics), Professor Dan Reedy
(Arts and Sciences), and Professor Mark Meier (Arts and Sciences) all spoke
in favor of the proposal with the recurring theme of the need of this
benefit to recruit and keep high quality students who play an integral and
important part in the activities of the University. They also felt this
was no longer a cutting edge benefit. The vast majorities of universities
have this benefit and many have had it for a very long time. In terms of
competitiveness, it is essential.

Professor Poe, as a member of the Budget and Finance and Institutional
Resource Committee, said the funds were not available and probably would
not be there in the near future.

Professor Meier asked if costs for students on assistantships would be paid
by the grants thus reducing the total cost of the program. Professor
Nietzel stated that a vast majority of the grants would reimburse the
insurance.

The question was called. The vote to cut off debate passed in a unanimous
voice vote.

The proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.

Bill Fortune (Law) said that he would like to commend Susan Mains for all
the work she had done on the proposal. Ms. Mains was given a round of
applause.

Chairperson Moore recognized Professor Jim Applegate, the past Chair of the
Senate Council and the Chair of the American Association of Higher
Education Steering Committee (AAHE) or Senior Faculty Development.

Professor Applegate introduced the other members of the committee: Kim
Anderson, College of Engineering; Professor Michael Kennedy, who is
representing the AAUP on the committee; Professor Joseph Brill,
representing the Arts and Sciences Council, which is in the process of
reviewing their pilot project this year; Professor Nolen Embry, Vice-Chair
of the faculty at Lexington Community College; Richard Greissman and Sue
Rimmer from the College of Arts and Sciences; Roy Moore the Chair of the
Senate Council, and Lois Nora from the College of Medicine.

Professor Applegate made the following remarks:

Many of you will remember during the year when I was Chair of the Senate
Council, there was a special session and a regular session of the Kentucky
Legislature. There were two different bills introduced to put in a
mandated post-tenure review system for the entire state. Through the
wisdom of the legislature and some encouragement from lobbying from the
Council of Senate Faculty Leaders headed by Loys Mather, that was decided
not to be done. At that point, the legislature asked the Council of
Post-Secondary Education for the legislative session in 2000 to review the
status of post-tenure review policies at all state institutions and report
to the legislature on where everyone was. In light of that and looking
around the country at what is happening in higher education, understanding
that Kentucky is not unlike most institutions in the country in that by the
year 2000 around fifty percent of our faculty will be age fifty or higher,
we thought it would be a wise time to start a conversation on campus about
what kind of things we need to be doing to really enhance, support, and
facilitate tenured senior faculty development on this campus. Seeing
post-tenure review as a part of that process the American Association for
Higher Education implemented a program to provide money to institutions
that wanted to have conversations and explore the issue. Given that we
already had a pilot program going in Arts and Sciences that was up for
being reviewed, we thought it would be an opportune time to get some money
from AAHE and use that to fund our conversations. We wrote a grant and
sent it in and received small funding. Some of the other institutions that
were funded were the University of Massachusetts systems campuses, the
University of Alaska state-wide system, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Drexler University, Texas A&M College Station, and a variety of other
institutions that cut across the types of schools and institutions in
higher education. We received the money in October. We appointed a
steering committee made up of the faculty I introduced earlier. This
committee is working closely with the Senate Committee on Planning and
Priorities, which Kim Anderson chairs. We will be using them as a sounding
board, as we think through and try to come up with ideas of what ought to
be done in terms of the senior faculty development policy. If we decide
after a semester long or more conversation that something does need to be
done, we will make the policy proposal to the Senate Council. They will
debate and review it, and bring it to you in the Senate next fall. There
is a lot of opportunity for conversation about this issue related to
post-tenure review and senior faculty development.

One of the first things that we wanted to do, once we got the grant in
October, was to begin to assemble data and information on this. Listed on
the handout are websites of institutions that have been in the process of,
already formulated, or at least considered and dealt with the issue of
post-tenure review. We will be making those available through a direct
link on the Senate web site. We want people to become aware of things
going on around the country at different institutions. There are
institutions that have this forced on them by legislators, other
institutions that have had it created by system-wide boards, and some have
generated it internally. If we end up with a good constructive senior
faculty development policy, we would like for it to come from this body and
not from above. In a survey done by the American Association of Higher
Education, forty states responded that over forty percent have a policy
already in place. Those vary in degree of extensiveness. Another fifteen
percent report that selective public institutions within the state system
have it. In only six states is the policy derived from state legislative
action. Thirteen states report that the policy is the result of system
governing or coordinating body initiatives. The model followed in over
eighty percent of these policies is a periodic mandatory review for all
tenured faculty on a five-year cycle. There will be a meeting in San Diego
of the liaisons that are working at the different institutions from these
grants. There will be a lot of workshops on the issues sponsored by AAHE.

This is a national issue and we are hoping that we can come up with a
policy that is not just about post-tenure review, but a constructive policy
that talks about if there are faculty who for one reason or another, have
gotten off track. How can we set a policy that will help them get back on
track, provide them with support, and the plan that is needed to get them
back where they want and need to be for all of us to be as productive as we
can be? There are also policies for faculty who are going along just fine
at different parts of their career to help them do better or to change
direction or decide they want to move in another avenue. Those are the
kinds of broad-based policy issue we are looking at. We are planning in
the Spring a major kickoff event, in which we will have representatives in
who have worked with community colleges, medical centers, Lexington campus
type institutions with post-tenure review to talk about their experiences.
We will have an open symposium for faculty and work with the Senate
committees and department chair forums, and, hopefully, after the spring,
we will have talked this thing to death and will decide whether we need to
do nothing, a little bit, or a lot in order to do the best that we can for
our faculty and also to assess the risk on the outside and see whether we
need to do some things for ourselves before something is done to us.

Loys Mather (Agriculture Economics) said that he would like to second what
Jim had said, particularly in the terms of the timeliness of this. There
was a bill in the last session of the legislature that was a one size fits
all and very punitive type of post-tenure review. It was one that we as
faculty, not just at UK but also the other public universities, felt they
simply could not live with. In talking with the legislators, we sensed
there was not as much interest on the part of the legislator in providing
it. As it was, they as faculty were in the process of providing some form
of post-tenure review. The point is that they have some time to develop
their own system, and there is an expectation on the part of the legislator
that the schools are doing that, and at such time that they have a review
and nothing has been done, you can likely expect some different kinds of
consequences.

ACTION ITEM 2 - Proposed Entrance and Progression Requirements for the
Hospitality and Tourism Program, College of Human Environmental Sciences.

Proposal:
The proposed entrance and progression standards (below) from the University
of Kentucky College of Human Environmental Sciences, Hospitality and
Tourism Program, have been approved by the Undergraduate Council, the
Senate committee on Admissions and Aacademic Standards, the University
Senate Council, and are forwarded to the Senate for approval. If approved
they will be included in the University Senate Rules and the University
Bulletin.

Admission Requirement:
The minimum grade point for entrance of all students into the Hospitality
Management and Tourism program is: 2.30

Progression Requirement
Students must have completed the following pre-major courses with a C grade
or better in order to progress to courses, which are major requirements:
CS 101 ACC 201 ACC 202 ECO 201 ECO 202
HMT 120 HMT 270 HMT 208 NFS 204 NFS 241
Graduation Requirement:
Students must fulfill all pre-requisites and achieve a C grade or better in
all NFS and HMT courses which are major requirements.

Background and Rationale: The faculty who teach in this program feel that
the grade minimums for entrance and progression are necessary in order to
build this program with student who are doing well enough, overall, in the
university, and who are committed to continuing their studies in this area
in a manner which will allow them to graduate with a complete and adequate
body of knowledge in the area of hospitality and tourism and to assume
positions of responsibility in highly respected business organizations.
Similar highly respected programs (for example, Florida State University,
Washington State University, and Cornell University) have strict admission
and progression requirements. The higher standards are necessary for this
program to become well known and respected, both nationally and within the
academic community at the University of Kentucky.

Implementation: Fall Semester, 1999

The Chair recognized Professor Meyer for introduction of the item.
Professor Meyer reviewed the background and recommended approval on behalf
of the Senate Council.

The proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 3 - Proposed Technical Standards from the University of
Kentucky College of Dentistry.

Proposal:
The attached proposed technical standards from the University of Kentucky
College of Dentistry have been approved by the Academic Council for the
Medical Center, the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards,
the University Senate Council, and are forwarded to the Senate for approval.

Implementation: January 1, 1999

Policy on Technical Standards
For Dental Students

Miscellaneous academic Policies: Policy on Technical Standards for Dental
Students

Policy Objective: To define the non-academic criteria for admission into;
continued enrollment in, and graduation from the Doctor of Dental Medicine
program.

Policy Statement:
The University of Kentucky College of Dentistry is committed to ensuring
that the opportunity to pursue oral health education is available to all
qualified persons. In this spirit, all qualified individuals will be
considered for admission. Moreover, the College will work to ensure that
all qualified students, consistent with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and the Americans with disabilities Act, will have the
opportunity to succeed in the College's programs of study.

The College recognizes that the Doctor of Dental Medicine (D.M.D.) degree
carries with it the full authority of the institution and communicates to
those who might seek the services of the bearer that he or she is competent
to practice dentistry. The D.M.D. degree is unique in that the graduate is
prepared and, when licensed, is allowed to practice all disciplines of the
dental profession. Therefore, the student must demonstrate the knowledge,
skills, and attitudes that the faculty has determined are essential for the
practice of dentistry. The student must acquire both cognitive and
technical skills to negotiate the curriculum.

The following technical standards describe the essential functions that
students must demonstrate in order to fulfill the requirements of a general
dental education, and thus are prerequisites for entrance, continuation,
and graduation from the College. Students must possess the skills and
abilities that will allow them to successfully complete the course of study
and receive the full benefit of dental education. While enrolled in dental
school, students must direct and perform treatment of the College's
patients. The College has the responsibility for ensuring the safety of
the patients. Treatment must be completed safely and within an acceptable
time.

The University of Kentucky College of Dentistry will consider for admission
any applicant who demonstrates the ability to perform or to learn to
perform the skills listed in this document. Continued enrollment and
graduation will depend on the successful demonstration of both the
knowledge and the skills listed in this document. The College's Academic
Performance Committee will monitor each student's demonstration of such
knowledge and skills. Applicants are not required to disclose the nature
of their disability(ies) to the Admissions Committee; however, any
applicant with questions about these technical standards is strongly
encouraged to discuss the issue with the Admissions Committee chair before
the interview. Upon the request of an applicant or a student, reasonable
accommodations will be provided.

Standards

1. Motor Skills

GENERAL: A student should have sufficient motor function to execute
movements reasonably required to provide general care to patients.

SPECIFIC: A student must have sufficient motor skills to directly perform
palpation, percussion, auscultation and other diagnostic maneuvers, basic
laboratory tests, and diagnostic procedures. Such actions require
coordination of gross and fine muscular movements, equilibrium, and
functional uses of the senses of touch and vision.

SPECIFIC: A student must be able to perform basic life support including
CPR, transfer and position disabled patients, physically restrain adults
and children who lack motor control, and position and reposition himself or
herself around patient and chair in a sitting or standing position. A
student must not hinder the ability of co-workers to perform prompt care.
A student must be able to operator controls, move high-speed or low-speed
dental drills with precision of less than one millimeter, and use hand
instrumentation including scalpels for surgical procedures.

2. Sensory/Observation

GENERAL: A student must be able to acquire a predetermined level of
required information through demonstrations and experiences in basic and
dental sciences courses.

SPECIFIC: Such information includes, but is not limited to, information
conveyed through: 1) physiologic and pharmacological demonstration in
animals; 2) microbiologicalcultures; 3) microscopic images in
microorganisms and tissues in normal and pathologic states; and 4)
demonstration of techniques using dental models. A student must be able to
acquire information from written documents, and to evaluate information
presented as images from paper, films, slides, or video. A student must be
able to interpret x-ray and other graphic images. A student must be able
to benefit from electronic and other instrumentation that enhances visual,
auditory, and somatic sensations needed for examination or treatment.

GENERAL: A student must be able to accurately observe a patient, at a
distance and close at hand, and observe and accurately interpret non-verbal
communications when performing dental operations or administering medications.

SPECIFIC: A student must be able to perform dental examinations and
treatment that requires the use of sight and tough. He or she must be able
to see fine detail, focus at a variety of distances, and discern
differences and variations in color, shape, and texture that are necessary
to differentiate normal and abnormal soft and hard tissues. He or she must
be able to use tactile senses to diagnose directly by palpation and
indirectly by sensations transited through instruments. A student must
also possess the visual acuity to read charts, records, radiographs, small
print and handwritten notation, and distinguish colors intro- and
extra-orally.

3. Communication

GENERAL: A student must be able to: communicate effectively and
sensitively with patients; convey or exchange information at a level
allowing development of a health history; identify problems, explain
alternative solutions; and give directions during treatment and
post-treatment. Communication includes speech and writing. A student must
be able to communicate effectively and efficiently in oral and written
English with all members of the health care team.

SPECIFIC: A student must have sufficient facility with English to:
retrieve information from texts and lectures and communicate concepts on
written exams and patient charts; elicit patient backgrounds; describe
patients changes in moods, activity, and posture; and coordinate patient
care with all members of the health care team. A student must be able to
communicate in lay language so that patients and their families can
understand the patient's conditions and, thereby, be more likely to comply
with treatment and preventive regimes.

SPECIFIC: In any case where the student's ability to communicate through
these sensory modalities is compromised, he or she must demonstrate
alternative means of communicating with instructors, patients, and other
members of the health care team.

4. Cognitive

GENERAL: A student must be able to measure, calculate, reason, analyze,
integrate, and synthesize.

SPECIFIC: A student must be able to comprehend three dimensional
relationships and to understand the spatial relationships of structures.
Problem solving, a critical skill demanded of dentists, requires all of
these intellectual abilities. A student must be able to perform these
problem solving skills in a timely fashion.

5. Behavioral

GENERAL: A student must possess the emotional health required for full use
of his-/her intellectual abilities, the exercise of good judgment, the
prompt completion of all responsibilities attendant to the diagnosis and
care of patients, and the development of mature, sensitive, and effective
relationships with patients.

SPECIFIC: A student must be able to tolerate physically-taxing workloads
and to function effectively under stress. He or she must be able to adapt
to changing environments, display flexibility, and learn to function in the
face of uncertainties inherent in the clinical problems of patients.
Compassion, integrity, concern for others, interpersonal skills, interests,
and motivation are all personal qualities that will be assessed during the
admissions and educational processes. A student must be able to manage
apprehensive patients with a range of moods and behaviors in a tactful,
congenial, personal manner so as not to alienate or antagonize them. A
student must be able to accept criticism and respond by appropriate
modification of behavior.

Responsible Agent: The Dean

Methods and Procedures: To be developed

Policy Approved by the Faculty: 3/24/98
Methods and procedures modified
By the Faculty Council: x/x/98

Chairperson Moore recognized Professor Meyer for introduction of the item.
Professor Meyer reviewed the background of the item and recommended
approval of the item.

The proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 4 - For Discussion and Action: Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty
Title Series

Background:
In December 1997 the Senate Council ad hoc Committee on Faculty Titles
Series (Co-Chaired by Professors Ann B. Amerson, Pharmacy, and Antoinette
Powell, Agriculture) submitted its Final Report for consideration by the
University Senate Council. 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.

The Senate Council has since then held extensive discussions, including two
sessions with the Committee Co-Chairs regarding the recommendations in the
report. The Council voted on November 16, 1998, to recommend approval by
the full Senate of the following revisions to the current Administrative
Regulations for the Special Title Series.

Proposal: [Delete strikeovers; add bold sections]

Administrative Regulations [AR II 1.0-1; p. VII-1 and ff.]

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 of
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 established 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.

Rationale: The Task Force recommended, and the Senate Council concurs,
that Ernest L. Boyer's expanded scope of scholarship -- discovery,
integrating application and teaching -- be considered in determining the
kind of activity expected. The Task Force and the Council also felt that
there should be some expectation for creative or scholarly activity.

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 professer*). 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.
Rationale: As with Regular Title appointments, individuals in the Special
Title Series deserve to know as clearly as possible from the outset what is
expected of them in order to attain tenure and promotion.

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.

Rationale: This change makes it clear that the job description is the
appropriate reference for ascertaining the expectations for appointment and
promotion associated with that specific position. It also assigns the Area
Committee the responsibility of making sure that there is consistency
between the criteria associated with the position. The Area Committee is
the appropriate body for carrying out this responsibility because it is the
committee that makes a recommendation to the chancellor regarding creation
of new special title positions and the committee that makes recommendations
regarding promotion and/or tenure for individuals who are appointed to
these 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 future 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.

Rationale: the changes effectively incorporate Ernest L. Boyer's
expanded scope of scholarship, as described in his chapter in Scholarship
Reconsidered: Priorities on the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, pp. 15-25. They also reflect
national trends in higher education toward expanding the boundaries and
definitions of scholarship to include a broad range of creative activities.
The changes also reinforce the high expectations for teaching, service and
professional development.

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.

Rationale: This change reflects the Task Force's recommendation that there
be some expectation for creative or scholarly activity, which will vary
with the position, as specified in the job description. It also reflects
Boyer's expanded scope of scholarship.

The Senate Council also recommends approval by the full Senate of the
following recommendations regarding the Faculty title Series:

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. The Special Title Series be retained as currently defined in the ARs.
(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.) 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.

Note: At its meeting on November 16, 1998, the Senate Council voted to
submit the following recommendations from the Task Force report to the full
Senate for discussion only. The Senate Council will consider the feedback
from the discussion in determining which recommendations to forward later
to the full Senate for action.

Boldface indicates suggested wording added by the Council. Strikeovers
indicate wording the Council recommends deleting. All items and changes are
for discussion only.

For Discussion Only:

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. The definition of contractual faculty does not include visiting
faculty.

Rationale: We feel the term nontenure denotes a secondary status.

2) 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.
The same process will be used to consider promotion as is currently used
for tenure and promotion.

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 market.

3) 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. Twelve
months is not an unusual amount of time needed to find another academic
position.

4) All faculty in the contractual title series should be provided all of
the same rights as faculty in tenure tracks within the respective Colleges.
These rights include are eligibility eligible for all committees except
committees deciding tenure decisions for special and regular title series
and shall be eligible 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.

5) 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.

The Chair recognized Professor Meyer for introduction of the item.
Professor Meyer stated that the first part was a proposal and the second
part was an area where there was not strong agreement within the Council,
and they wanted the full Senate to discuss those points. He reviewed the
background of the proposal and recommended approval by the Senate Council.

Mike Cibull (Medicine) and Alan Kaplan (Medicine) asked for clarification
of the part of the proposal where the job description is being passed to
the area committee

Lee Meyer said that, from the deliberations in the Senate Council, whenever
the job description is changed, it would have to be reviewed at those
various levels. The attempt here is that if the area committee is going to
act upon promotion of someone, there should be consistency over time.

Chancellor Elisabeth Zinser said that she did not read anything in the
proposed changes that contemplates a change in those procedures in that
interpretation. She assumed that it was intended to continue as it is now.
The intent is if there is a master job description, it is specific enough
to cover a variety of different appointments and it can be used and not
reviewed over and over. It does not have to be done position by position,
unless there is a significant difference in the expectations of the
individuals work.

Phyllis Nash (Medical Center) said that the current process in the Medical
Center is that if there is a new special title series position created, the
area committee reviews the promotion criteria and actually has approval of
the promotion criteria. They do not have approval of the job description.
They look at the promotion criteria in order to make sure that people at
the assistant, associate, and full professor level are evaluated some what
consistently across positions. The change she sees in this is now the area
committee would not only be reviewing the promotion criteria but also
reviewing the job description.

Professor Cibull made the motion to send Section C back to the committee
for some clarifying language that better defines the role of the area
committee in the appointment of faculty in the special title series.

Claire Pomeroy (Medicine) supported the proposal to send back to committee
because in the Department of Medicine, the vast majority of new
appointments are in special title series. This is the norm, and the amount
of time it takes to get a new person is already long, adding another layer
on could be potentially disastrous.

Bill Fortune (Law) asked if the people from the Medical Center rather than
send the proposal back to the committee could propose an amendment instead.
Would keeping the existing langauge be better?

Professor Kaplan said that would actually work because it is more
consistent from job to job.

The motion to send back to committee was withdrawn.

Professor Fortune proposed that Section C, paragraph 2, read as it did in
the original.

Geza Bruckner (Allied Health) said that the question is still what is the
intent of the proposal?

Alan Kaplan said that the problem is that the criteria for appointment and
promotion are generic. They need to be consistent.

Doug Poe (Business and Economics) said they had talked about this in the
Senate Council for a year and a half, and one issue that kept coming back
was the number of faculty complaints that what was on their job description
and the criteria they are held to when it gets to the area committee for
promotion are not the same.

Mike Cibull said many people were hired to do one thing and told to do
another and have very little recourse. This document makes it very clear
that their job description is what they are going to be expected to be
doing. A lot of that particular criticism is just removed by this. He is
very much in favor of this redefinition, but not in favor or increasing the
layers of bureaucracy that are needed to get a job in place.

The amendment to restore Section C to the original language passed in a
show of hands; 26 for and12 against.

The amended proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.

The Chair said that the next part of the proposal was for discussion only,
not for a vote and recognized Professor Meyer for introduction. Professor
Meyer stated that members of the Senate Council would lead the discussion
of the five items.

Rationale: We feel the term nontenure denotes a secondary status.

The following issues and questions were raised to take back to the Senate
Council:

Volunteer faculty do have have a contract so therefore are not considered
contractual faculty.

Is an additional label beyond the title series needed? If regular and
special title series are eligible for tenure and the others are not, why do
they have to be labeled as tenured versus nontenured for contractual?

The following issues and questions were raised to take back to the Senate
Council:

Many research assistant professors are paid by grants, some might be at the
University for many years and the expectation is frequently they would like
them to stay. If a grant is terminated, they know a year in advance and
give the maximum amount of warning, but there is no money to pay if the
grant is terminated, so they can not extend to a three to five year period.

Has there been some thought that if people are kept on for a lengthy period
of time, that the Medical Center has an obligation to find them a position
if the event the grant fails.

This type of individual seems to find an alternative appointment within the
Medical Center or elsewhere in the University more often than not.

The wording is such that these people would be dismissed prior to coming up
for the three to five year promotion in order to protect the department or
professor. In Pharmacy they are very careful about these appointments
because of the salary obligation, if they are supported by grants and the
grant ends, the college is then responsible for the salary for the term of
the contract. The contracts are worded very carefully so when the grant
runs out so does the appointment and the salary.

Physicians are often hired in the clinical title series and if for example
they do not get an HMO contract or people start going to a different
institution, if they do not generate their salary, there is no money to pay
them.

Does this affect being able to attract the people they want with these
short-term contracts? This is what they get in private practice. After
two years at then end of the contract, they still get years notice.

The Administrative Regulations as they are allow them to give faculty in
the research title or clinical title series a contract for the period of
the funding.

3) Contractual faculty must be notified at least one year in advance of
their contracts will not be
renewed the following year.

Rationale: All faculty need the time to find suitable employment. Twelve
months is not an unusual amount of time needed to find another academic
position.

The following issues and questions were raised to take back to the Senate
Council:

This has not always been the practice, the Administration forced the
one-year situation. There was a line on the contract that basically said
if the funding were no longer available the person would be terminated.
They were told they were in error and must give in the first year a three
month notice, in the second year a six month notice, and after that they
could only be given notice at the end of the contract period and that had
to be a full year's notice. In this era of unsure funding, one way to get
around that is to only guarantee the one year and then hope at the end of
the year they will be able to give another contract, but in order to
protect the departments from being obligated financially that is the route
they went. The department did not have to do that, if they had funding and
knew they could pay for one full year, then they did not have to have a
terminal contract.

This does not necessarily work well and there are research faculty who feel
insulted by getting revolving terminal appointments. This has to do with
money and should be worked out by a committee of faculty and administration
together.

The following issues and questions were raised to take back to the Senate
Council:

This could be a place where lumping faculty in the contractual category
creates a problem. Within research assistant professors, they should have
the same rights as faculty, they are seldom ever going to be majority and
this would not be a problem. In the case of clinical title series, it
could become a problem.

The clinical title series faculty are teaching students and doing many of
the same things that the rest of the regular title and special title series
faculty are doing, getting them to give up private practice and do this and
then telling them they can not be on a University committee, is negative in
terms of attracting. They want to serve on committees. They do serve on
departmental committees which allow that.

The issue is what is best for the University? In clinical departments
where the goal is to make money for the department by practicing medicine,
it becomes an overriding concern to the exclusion of research and even
perhaps to some extent teaching. If people are hired who are just going to
be practicing medicine than the whole tone of the department could be changed.

One of the issues that is interesting, that they have been discussing
affects people who are not in attendance. They should be able to vote on
some of these things that affect their careers and their place of
employment and that argues to give them voting rights.

The United States Senate often talks about things that affect people lives
that are not in the meeting. That is the nature of any elected body.

There are full-time faculty who have no intention of staying for the long
haul. People in tenured faculty positions are usually planning on staying,
in the one or two-year clinical positions there are quite a few people who
are not planning on staying. Perhaps representatives from this group could
be included in the debate or to the committees to discuss issues.

5) 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.

The following issues and questions were raised to take back to the Senate
Council:

Are there departments in the Medical Center for whom this would be a
problem? There are not any now, but with the Medicare who knows what might
happen next year. It might be necessary to have a group of people who are
predominately practicing medicine in order to have enough money to survive.
There is enough bureaucracy; there is no need to mandate every aspect of
departmental life.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Donald Witt
Secretary, University Senate

You are visitor since June 29, 1999

Return to University Senate Page
Return to University Senate Minutes
Return to Registrar's Home Page

This page was last updated on 29 June 1999.
If you have questions or comments about this web page, please use this comment form

URL: http://www.uky.edu/USC/Minutes/sm121498.html