MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, MARCH 10, 1997

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March
10, 1997 in Room 115 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Professr Janice Schach, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Debra Aaron, David Adams*, Gary Anglin, Vasant
Bhapkar, Patricia Birchfield, Ben Bogia, Maria Boosalis*, Darla Botkin,
Joseph Burch, Lauretta Byars, Johnny Cailleteau, Joan Callahan*, Brad
Canon*, Ben Carr, Edward Carter, Jordan Cohen*, Scott Coovert, Raymond
Cox*, Frederick DeBeer*, Philip DeSimone*, Lori Eaton, Richard Edwards,
Anthony English*, Robert Farquhar, Juanita Fleming*, William Freehling,
Andrew Fried*, Richard Furst, Christine Havice, James Holsinger, Robert
Houtz, Clifford Hynniman*, Betty Huff*, Monica Kern*, James Knoblett, Cra=
ig
Koontz, Gretchen LaGodna, Thomas Lester, C. Oran Little, Daniel Mason,
Douglas Michael*, Jenny Miller, Karen Mingst*, David Mohney, Roy Moore*,
Donald Mullineaux*, Santos Murty, David Nash, Phyllis Nash*, Wolfgang
Natter, Anthony Newberry, Thomas Nieman, Melanie Shay Onkst, Rhoda-Gale
Pollack*, Thomas Robinson, Michael Rohmiller, Rosetta Sandidge*, Horst
Schach, David Shipley, David Stockham, Retia Walker, Charles Wethington*,
Adam Wilhelm, Carolyn Williams*, Eugene Williams, Lionell Williamson, Pau=
l
Willis, Emery Wilson, Phyllis Wise, William Witt, Craig Wood.
* Absence Explained

Chairperson Schach made the following announcements:

There will be a special Senate Meeting on April 28, 1997 at 3:00 p.m. in
Room 201 of the Nursing Health Sciences Learning Center. This meeting wi=
ll
be to discuss the recommendations coming from the Senate Council Task
Force on Promotion and Tenure. The two subcommittees on Process and
Criteria are finishing their recommendations and it would be appropriate
for the Senate to review those prior to that meeting and to hold discussi=
on
on them.

The regularly scheduled meeting will be held on April 14, 1997. It is
intended at this time for that meeting to be devoted to a discussion of
where the plus/minus issue is headed. There will be some proposals for
action to be taken at that time.

On February 14, 1997, I with a group of selected faculty, administrative
individuals, and Board Members attended a meeting with Governor Patton at
Maxwell Place. There was a really good exchange of ideas regarding the
future of higher education. The University was well presented in it=92s
interest in developing itself as a premier research institution.

On March 24, 1997 the Senate Council will be meeting with Governor Ned
Breathitt, the Chair of the Board of Trustees to discuss the Governor=92s
Task Force and issues of University Governance.

The Senate Council has created two new task forces; one is for the study =
of
course evaluations and will be chaired by Deborah Bott Slaton. They will
be looking at how to improve course evaluation forms and make them more
uniform University-wide. They will be looking primarily to make them of
more use to the instructor, more constructive in helping instructors to
improve their teaching as well as to be more accurate in evaluation
purposes for tenure, promotion, and merit. The second task force will be
chaired by Craig Infanger to study the faculty survey. The Senate Rules
currently require the Senate Council to conduct a survey of the faculty
every two years. This has not been done for a long time. They will be
looking to see if the survey should be continued or if there are other
mechanisms that give ample feedback from the faculty and if not, what for=
m
the survey should take.

Chairperson Schach offered the following special resolution:

SPECIAL RESOLUTION
FACULTY BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEMBER
March 10, 1997

Presented to the University of Kentucky Senate in appreciation for the
service of Professor Deborah Powell, Faculty Representative, University o=
f
Kentucky Board of Trustees, July 1, 1992 to April 15, 1997.

On behalf of the University Senate and Senate Council, I present this
resolution of thanks and appreciation to Professor Deborah Powell, MD for
her service to us and our University.

Professor Powell joined the University of Kentucky from Georgetown
University School of Medicine and Dentistry in 1976 as an Associate
Professor. She has served as Chair of the Department of Pathology since
1988 and Director of the Cytogenetic Lab from 1982-1989. In 1995, she wa=
s
honored with the William R. Willard Dean=92s Recognition Award from the
College of Medicine. =20

We all have benefited from Deborah=92s distinguished research, teaching, =
and
service in the field of pathology. Her contributions span the national a=
nd
local level. Among numerous other roles, she is currently or has served =
at
one time as Trustee of the American Board of Pathology, President-Elect o=
f
the Association of Pathology Chairs, Vice Chair of the Education Committe=
e
of the College of American Pathologists, Board Member of the College of
American Pathologists Foundation, International Councilor for the United
States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, member of several editorial
boards including Cancer Cytopathology, Human Pathology, and The Breast
Journal. In addition, she has served as a member of Kentucky Medical
Examiner Advisory Commission, Delegate of the Kentucky Breast Cancer
Coalition, member of the Board of Directors of the Fayette County Chapter
of the American Cancer Society.

Deborah=92s research record is prolific and has focused on some of the mo=
st
important women=92s health issues of the day including endometrial, uteri=
ne,
cervical, ovarian, and breast cancer. She has authored 89 journal
articles, nine book chapters, two books, and delivered 36 abstracts and
presentations, and numerous invited lectures throughout the world. She i=
s
also a dedicated teacher, serving as course director for Pathology 821,
required of all medical students.

However, today, it is Deborah=92s service to the University that is
acknowledged and most appreciated. Among countless other committees and
task forces, she has served as the Faculty Representative to the Board of
Trustees since 1992, member of the Senate and Senate Council, Senate
Committee on Academic Organization and Structure, Senate Committee on
Priorities and Planning, Co-Chair of the Senate Council Task Force on
Faculty Title Series, member of the University Appeals Board, Student Cod=
e
Committee, Chair of the Women=92s Health Center Steering Committee, membe=
r of
the University Strategic Planning Committee, Faculty Workload Committee,
Medical Center Academic Council, Clinical Sciences Area Advisory Committe=
e,
and numerous committees within the College of Medicine. Most impressivel=
y,
Deborah has been able to balance this highly successful career with
responsibilities to her husband, Ralph, and four children.

Deborah has served the University faithfully, with forthrightness, and de=
ep
caring and concern for all regardless of role, status, or college. In al=
l
her dealings, she has held the best interests of the University and its
members paramount. Her keen insight has allowed her to view issues from
the perspective of administration, faculty, and staff. As Board of
Trustees Chair Ned Breathitt declared, =93Deborah has been the conscience=
of
the Board of Trustees.=94 Indeed, she has also been the conscience of t=
he
University.

We appreciate Deborah as a diligent and tenacious guardian of the unique
role of faculty in an academic institution. We appreciate her exceptiona=
l
willingness to always take time, to listen first and then to speak, and h=
er
ability to get right to the heart of an issue convincing everyone along t=
he
way of the wisest course. We appreciate her indomitable grace and the
manner with which she brings reason and calm to the most tempestuous
situation. Most of all, we appreciate Deborah for the warm, caring,
wonderful human being she is.

In April, Deborah will be leaving the University of Kentucky to become De=
an
of the University of Kansas College of Medicine. She will be one of only
five women deans in the 141 accredited colleges of medicine in the Unite=
d
States and Canada. She will be responsible for 23 departments in Wichita
and at the main campus in Kansas City. =20

It is with mixed feelings that we say good-bye, Deborah. Sadness, as we
begin to realize the depth of our loss. Joy, in congratulating you on th=
is
much deserved opportunity. We wish you and your family the best of fortu=
ne
now as you assume your new role and always. Deborah, please accept our
sincerest thanks for all that you have done to make this University not
just an outstanding academic institution, but also a caring place to lear=
n
and grow. You will be deeply missed.

Please join me in recognizing Professor Deborah Powell.

I direct that this resolution be spread upon the minutes of the Senate an=
d
that a copy be sent to Professor Powell.

Dr. Powell was given a standing ovation.

Dr. Powell made the following remarks:

Thank you to the UK Senate

As most of you know, I will be leaving the University of Kentucky next
month after 21 years. I have accepted the position of Executive Dean at
the University of Kansas Medical School in Kansas City and so am trading =
UK
for KU. As a consequence of this move I am giving up my position of your
faculty representative on the UK Board of Trustees for almost five years.
I appreciate the Senate Council Chair giving me this opportunity today to
say thank you to the Senate, and through you, to all the UK faculty for
allowing me to serve as your representative to the Board. I have tried t=
o
be an advocate for the faculty, both to the President and to the Board. =
I
have tried to not to be confrontational but rather to engender among the
board members a sense of respect for the dedication of the faculty and
their desire for UK to become a better institution. I hope that I have
succeeded in this.

In a larger context, I want to thank you all for giving me the opportunit=
y
to participate in faculty governance, first as a member of the College of
Medicine Faculty Council, as a member to the Senate for many years, as
chair of a Senate committee, as a member of the Senate council and as a
faculty representative to the Board of Trustees. This opportunity to ser=
ve
as a member of the larger University community has made an enormous
difference to me. It has given me an understanding of the importance of
the components of the University - students, faculty and administration -
working together with mutual respect and has shown me how the system
suffers if that respect and cooperation is not present.

I want very much to be a good Dean. My success will be in large part due
to the experience I have had and wisdom I have gained as a faculty member
at UK involved in faculty governance. I want to thank you for having mad=
e
this possible.

Dr. Powell was given a round of applause.

The Chair recognized Professor Jim Applegate, Chair-elect of the Senate
Council to present a resolution.

Professor Applegate said that the Council and Senate faculty leaders has
asked for endorsement for the following resolution.

Faculty should have a formally established ongoing voice in deliberations
of change in governance. To establish a permanent channel for faculty
input in state wide discussions of higher education policy we recommend
that a faculty member be to added to the Council on Higher Education.

The Chair said that the group; Coalition of Senate Faculty Leaders is
composed of Senate Faculty chairs, Board of Trustee Members, and Regents
from all the eight public institutions in the state. They have been
sending white papers and position papers to the Governor=92s Task Force.
They present this resolution today and are asking that all the eight
schools endorse this resolution that will be presented to the Governor.

The motion passed in an unanimous voice vote.

Chairperson Schach said that she had received many requests over the last
week for a presentation or discussion of the Lexington Campus budget. In
conversations with Chancellor Zinser many very positive results have come
about, one of which is Chancellor Zinser met with her on several occasion=
s
to review the proposed budget for 1997-1998. The Chancellor has also met
with Doug Poe, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Institutional Finance=
s.
She will be meeting with both the Senate Council and the Senate Committee
on Institutional Finances this Wednesday to give a briefing on the budget
and to discuss the involvement of this committee in the development of th=
e
upcoming biennial budget. These are very positive developments and
Chancellor Zinser deserves a lot of credit due to fact in the collective
memory of the Senate Council this has not been done before.

Chancellor Zinser agreed to come today to give the Senate a briefing as
well. I would ask that this be informational only and that you hold any
questions that you may have on the budget until the meeting on Wednesday,
which will be the budget briefing to the Senate Council and the Senate
Committee on Institutional Finances. That will be held on Wednesday, Mar=
ch
12, 1997 at 4:30 p.m. in Room 230 of the Student Center. Anyone is welco=
me
who has questions or comments on what you hear today.

Chancellor Zinser thanked the Senate for the opportunity to speak with th=
em.

The Chancellor=92s presentation is attached to the minutes.

Chancellor Zinser was given a round of applause.

The Chair then welcomed Dean Connie Wood to present nominations for
Honorary Degrees. Any of the decisions made on this today are to be held
in strict confidence. None of these have been presented to the Board of
Trustees and so are not to be made public. Dr. Wood said that the
nominations that are being put forward come from an Honorary Degree
Committee and have been approved by the Graduate Council and the Graduate
Faculty. Dr. Wood read biographical information on the nominees for the
Senate=92s consideration.

The motion to accept the degree candidates for recommendation to the
President passed in an unanimous voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 1: New Rules for the S (Satisfactory) and U (Unsatisfactory)
grades in the graduate school

Proposal:
S (Satisfactory)/U (Unsatisfactory) Grades
A grade of =93S=94 (Satisfactory work in profess) or =93U=94 (Unsatisfact=
ory work
in progress) may be recorded for students making satisfactory or
unsatisfactory progress in graduate seminars, independent work courses,
research courses which extend beyond the normal limits of a semester or
summer term, and in residence credit courses for the master=92s or doctor=
ate.
Grades of =93S=94 and =93U=94 must be removed and a letter grade (A, B, =
C, or E)
awarded before a candidate is permitted to sit for the Final Examination.
Grades of =93S=94 and =93U=94 do not have to be removed in thesis or diss=
ertation
courses for residence credit (748), 749, 768, and 769) or in courses whic=
h
carry no credit.

If a student accumulates 3 or more grades of =93U=94, indicating unsatisf=
actory
progress toward a degree, a graduate program may recommend to the Dean of
the Graduate School that the student=92s enrollment be terminated in a
particular program.

Background and Rationale:
At present there is no grade which can be recorded to indicate
unsatisfactory progress in a seminar, independent course, or research
endeavor which extends beyond the semester or summer term in which it was
begun. The =93U=94 grade addresses that deficiency, permitting the instr=
uctor
or research supervisor to provide formal notification to the student of h=
is
or her failure to meet expectations.

Implementation Date: Fall, 1997

Note: If approved the proposal will be forwarded to the Rules Committee
for codification.

Chairperson Schach recognized Professor Jim Applegate, Chair-elect of the
Senate Council for introduction of the item. Professor Applegate reviewe=
d
the background of the item and recommended approval of the item.

Hans Gesund (Engineering) asked how you could tell whether a student shou=
ld
get an A, B, C, or E in a residence credit course? Connie Wood (Graduate
School) said that residence credit courses are graded only at this point =
on
a scale which involves an S. It is the only grade which is allowable, a
letter grade is not an allowable grade. The proposal is to also allow th=
e
grade of U. The A, B, C, or E is for independent study courses and
seminars, those courses for which the Senate rule and the grading scales =
do
allow the faculty member to insert a grade of S, indicating progress bein=
g
made toward the degree but for course work which may extend over the cour=
se
of a single semester. Professor Hans suggested it needed to be rewritten
so that it is clearer.

Kaveh Tagavi (Engineering) said he had a problem with the U. As of now
there is no letter grade of U. There are two parts to this proposal, one
part applies to seminars, independent work courses, and research courses
and these are temporary Us. It has to be removed before the student
graduates. The other part applies to research and residence credit, whic=
h
does not have to be removed. He has a problem with that part only.
Technically it is possible that a PhD would be granted with a U on the
transcript in front of their research or residence credit. He would like
the Graduate School to mandate that all grades of U be removed before a
student could sit for the final examination. He made the motion to send
the item back to the Graduate Council.

Pam Kidd (Nursing) asked for a point of clarification. Does this mean th=
at
that a student could not be granted a degree if they have a U.=20

Connie Woods said that the first part of the proposal refers to the fact
that an S grade is given in courses that are graded with a letter grade.
Currently the S can only be used to show that the student is making
satisfactory progress. This part of the proposal would allow for a U to =
be
used. This makes no change in terms of operating for graduate students
because all of those have to be removed and converted to letter grades
before any type of final examination can be attempted. The second part o=
f
the proposal says that when, in particular, doctoral students who are
postqualifying who are not making sufficient progress on their
dissertation, at this point the only option is to either withhold a grade=
,
put in an Incomplete, or award the grade of S. This will allow the
faculty member the opportunity to submit a grade of U. As the proposal i=
s
today, that grade of U could actually stand and the student could take
their final defense and graduate with that U in doctoral residency stayin=
g
there permanently on the record.

Jesse Weil (Physics) said he had some discomfort with the practice of
rewriting history. The grade of U indicates that in that particular
semester the student did not make the progress that is normally expected =
of
them. To say later, that the degree was received so the U should be take=
n
from the record is rewriting history.

Kaveh Tagavi said that the grade of S or U says work in progress, so it =
is
not rewriting history anymore than converting the grade of I to a letter
grade. Indeed half of the proposal does allow that. As it is written no=
w,
it is possible someone could have a PhD from the University of Kentucky
and in front of their doctoral research course there would be an U.

The vote on the motion to recommit to the Graduate School passed in a voi=
ce
vote.

ACTION ITEM 2: Proposed amendment to the Senate Rules, Section V
(Incomplete Grades) changes in the I grade rules for graduate level cours=
es. =20

Proposal
I (Incomplete Grades)
A grade of I (Incomplete) may be assigned to a graduate student if a part
of the work of a course remains undone and there is a reasonable
possibility that a passing grade will result from completion of the work.
All incomplete (I grades) must be replaced by a regular final letter grad=
e
within 12 months of the end of the academic term in which the I grade was
awarded or prior to the student=92s graduation, whichever occurs first. =
If
an I grade has not been replaced within the allowable period, the
University Registrar shall change the I grade to a grade of E on the
student=92s permanent academic record and adjust the student=92s grade-po=
int
standing accordingly, unless otherwise approved because of exceptional
circumstances by the Dean of the Graduate School on recommendation of the
Director of Graduate Studies in the student=92s program.

Instructors who assign an I grade should file with the student=92s Direct=
or
of Graduate Studies information which includes 1) the name of the student=
,
2) the course number and hours of credit, 3) the semester and year of
enrollment, 4) specific information on the work to be completed before a
final grade can be assigned, and 5) the time frame in which the specific
requirements are to be met (not to exceed 12 months). Graduate students
should consult with their Director of Graduate Studies concerning
procedures relative to the awarding of =93I=94 grades and the conditions =
under
which they may be removed I that particular program.

Background and Rationale:
Present policy requires that =93I=94 grades be removed, but does not spec=
ify
the time period in which this must occur. The proposed policy spells out
the time frame and the consequences of failure to remove the =93I=94 grad=
e in
the allotted time. The proposal also calls for administrative procedures
which ensure that the student is fully informed of the instructor=92s
expectations for completion of the course.

Implementation Date: Fall, 1997

Note: If approved the proposal will be forwarded to the Rules Committee
for codification

The Chair recognized Professor Applegate for introduction of the second
Agenda Item. Professor Applegate reviewed the background of the proposal
and recommended approval on behalf of the Senate Council.

Jesse Weil said he was the Director of Graduate Studies and deals with
students who have I grades. He wanted to know why the proposal was being
made, since all student must convert I grades to letter grades before the=
y
can sit for any exam, so eventually if the student is going to make any
progress they must get the Is off. Why then is it necessary to set a tim=
e
limit on converting the incomplete? This will make a lot of time consumi=
ng
work for the director of graduate studies and the dean of the Graduate
School. Is it intended that the I convert to an E only if the student is
enrolled? Do they have twelve months of enrollment or is it twelve
calendar months irregardless of the status? If there is a good reason fo=
r
having a conversion, he would prefer to have it be after two or perhaps
three years.

Connie Wood said the intent is to better inform faculty and students of t=
he
expectations that in fact I grades need to be removed and removed in a
timely manner. There is a feeling by many directors of graduate studies
and many faculty that this is just a second class withdraw from a course.
That a grade of I can be assigned and it can remain. The students are
often very surprised to learn when they apply to sit for their final exam
that no such exam will be allowed due to the fact that old incomplete gra=
de
must be completed in the ten days before they will sit for their final
exam. The intent is to codify the expectations that these incomplete
grades are only to be given in situations where the student does have a
reasonable chance of completing the course and also to set an expectation
for the time.

David Hamilton (History) said another rationale for this proposal was it
brings into conformity with the undergraduate rule, which has been a
successful rule. A second reason is that it is felt that a number of
students simply become burdened with incompletes and it is to their
detriment as a student to take on so many incompletes and satisfy them a
couple of days before they sit for their exams. They felt it was in the
best interest of the students to not let the incomplete go on for more th=
an
a year unless there was some legitimate reason. There was also some
concern that some faculty members are simply too willing to issue the
incomplete and that this proposal would discourage that.

Carolyn Brock (Chemistry) said that rules could be passed to solve all
possible problems and waste more hours of the director of graduate
studies' time. There is so much that goes back and forth between the DGS
and the Graduate School now that the job is almost unmanageable. Getting
someone to take the job is very difficult. The more rules that are passe=
d
like this the more than will happen. Graduate students are not like
undergraduate students. They are housed in a department which is a unit
substantially smaller than a college. These kinds of problems need to be
solved in the department.

Enid Waldhart (Communications) said that it was her understanding that th=
e
Registrar=92s Office would take care of doing the translation of the Is =
to
Es if they have not received any other type of notification. The Chair
stated that was the case. Professor Waldhart stated that then it would n=
ot
be the Director of Graduate Studies responsibility. Professor Jesse Weil
said it would be the Director of Graduate Studies responsibility to reque=
st
the waiver.

Professor Weil made the motion to amend to the proposal to change the one
year conversion time to a two year conversion time.

The amendment failed in a show of hands.

The proposal passed in a show of hands; 34 for, 16 against.

ACTION ITEM 3: Proposal to establish principles and objectives for
evaluating alternate routes for satisfying the oral communication
requirement in University Studies.

Proposal
The University Studies Committee shall employ the principles and learning
objectives set forth below for evaluating the alternate routes for
satisfying the Oral Communication Requirement in University Studies.

Rationale
The University Studies Committee seeks endorsement of the general
guidelines (i.e. principles and objectives) set forth below for evaluatin=
g
the alternate means of satisfying the Oral Communication requirement in t=
he
USP. Since alternate routes for completing the Oral Communication
requirement vary considerably from discipline to discipline, and since
effective evaluation requires a common understanding of what we are seeki=
ng
to achieve, the Committee thought it best to establish some general
guidelines. The Committee does not anticipate that each program will
strive to achieve each and every stated objective in the areas of public
speaking or interpersonal communication but that each unit will
substantially pursue these aims. The Committee also anticipates that
individual academic units will pursue these aims in ways which are tailor=
ed
to particular programs, bearing in mind, however, that the Oral
Communication requirement is part of general education and is intended to
help students acquire skills which are applicable to a broad range of
topics and situations.

The Committee also recommends that for purposes of evaluation the followi=
ng
procedure be followed. The principles and objectives will be forwarded t=
o
responsible units with a request for a written statement concerning the
ways in which the various units are following the guidelines. Upon recei=
pt
of written statements about the methods used by the various units, the US=
P
Committee may request additional information through interviews and
conversations with appropriate individuals in the unit. Where difference=
s
occur regarding the interpretation of the principles and/or objectives, t=
he
Committee will use every effort to reach consensus. If the Committee
believes that the program in a specific unit is not substantially followi=
ng
the guidelines set forth below, it will provide the unit with an
opportunity to adjust its program so as to rectify the situation. If the
unit does not make adjustments in a reasonable time, the USP Committee wi=
ll
recommend to the Senate Council that the alternate route be discontinued =
as
part of University Studies. In the case of such action, the Senate Counc=
il
will function as an appeals committee, and its decision shall be final.

The Committee sees this methodology as a type of pilot project in carryin=
g
out its responsibility for evaluating all components of University Studie=
s.
If the system works as anticipated, it will provide a model for developi=
ng
similar methodologies for the rest of the Program.

Criteria for Evaluating Alternate Routes in Oral Communication
General Principles

1. Students will receive instruction from individuals with formal or
specialized training in oral communication. This principle does not mean
that instructors must have a degree in communication or have taken formal
courses in the subject. However, instructors must have acquired sufficie=
nt
knowledge through activities such as workshops, individual consultations,
cooperative projects, and the like with professionals in the field.

2. Students will utilize appropriate resource materials (e.g., textbooks
focused on the development of oral communication skills) in order to
develop their skills in oral communication.

3. Students will be provided substantial opportunity to practice, receive
comment, and be evaluated on their oral communication competencies.
=09
4. Students will be required to develop the ability to communicate with a
wide variety of audiences which go beyond specific disciplines.

5. A significant part of the final grade(s) will be dependent on the
acquisition of the stated oral communication objectives.

Objectives
Alternate Routes: Public Speaking

Courses should be designed to increase students=92 understanding of the
principles and processes of communication in public contexts and to
facilitate development of effective public speaking skills.

Competencies to be developed

1. Message/argument construction - includes identifying clear specific
statement of purpose and central idea, selection of logical and ethical
strategies to help audience make necessary connections, gathering and
selecting information necessary to formulate complete and coherent argume=
nts.

2. Audience Analysis - understand the need to take the perspective on one=
=92s
audience in order to select appropriate message and delivery strategies.

3. Message Organization - includes organizing and outlining messages whic=
h
will accomplish the speaker=92s goals.

4. Message Reception/Critique - includes active and critical listening bo=
th
as one hears other students=92 presentations as well as speakers in other
contexts.

5. Message Delivery/Presentation - includes the skills needed to present
message effectively through use of voice, eye contact, movement and
gestures, etc.
Alternate Routes: Interpersonal Communication

1. Context Situation/Audience Analysis
a) Identify and adapt to perceived needs and desires of other communicat=
ors

b) Broaden range of possible responses and make effective decisions duri=
ng
communication situations

c) Recognize when a message is not being understood

d) Express and manage emotions appropriately

2. Message Development, Support and Organization
a) Select the most appropriate method for communicating a message

b) Identify goals and objectives as a communicator

c) Anticipate the range of possible responses

d) Accomplish communication goals

3. Conversation Management and Evaluation
a) Understand the differences in communicator style

b) Listen carefully and clarify the messages of others

c) Analyze assumptions and purposes of others

d) Detect and respond to discrepancies in communication with others

4. Assertiveness, Gaining Compliance and Interpersonal Influence
a) Motivate others to disclose information when appropriate and change
behavior or attitudes of others

b) Effectively assert oneself, manage conflict, and gain the compliance =
of
others

c) Convey empathy when communicating

d) Build and maintain constructive relationships with superiors, peers,
and subordinates

5. Self-Presentation, Impression Management and Message Delivery
a) Recognize and use appropriate nonverbal behaviors for the message and
=93audience=94

b) Describe/express emotions appropriately; cope with negative feedback

c) Accept responsibility for self-presentation and impression management

d) Accept responsibility for own communication behavior

6. Ethical Communication and Decision-Making
a) Develop criteria for ethical communication

b) Analyze and apply criteria in a broad range of ethical communication
situations

c) Understand and demonstrate the =93ethics=94 of appreciating cultural =
and
communicator style differences

d) Detect and evaluate communication practices which indicate prejudice =
in
regards to gender, race, age, ethnic or sexual/affectional orientatio=
n

Implementation Date: Fall Semester, 1997

Chairperson Schach recognized Professor Applegate to introduce the next
item. Professor Applegate reviewed the background of the item and
recommended approval of behalf of the Senate Council.

The Chair asked Professor Applegate to take her place as Chair so she cou=
ld
speak to the issue as a faculty member.

Jan Schach (Agriculture) said she wanted to support the motion as a facul=
ty
member in Landscape Architecture where they are one of the alternate rout=
es
for the Oral Communication requirement. As it stands now, there are
certain alternate programs that are not meeting the spirit of the Oral
Communication requirement and anyone who is fair and would evaluate those
programs would come to the same conclusion. Therefore is it necessary th=
at
there be some type of fair criteria by which those programs are evaluated.
The charge of the USP Committee is to on occasion go back and evaluate th=
is
program. There is not a list of objective criteria to do that and this i=
s
an attempt and a very good one on behalf of the USP to develop these
criteria. She said she felt they were reasonable in doing this and
supported them. She reminded the Senate that in the Southern Association
of Colleges and Schools Accreditation Requirements it is required that th=
is
Institution produce people who are competent at oral communication. One
could technically, if they looked closely enough, say that it not ensured
right now, because there are alternate routes are not evaluated.

Hans Gesund said that the criteria were very comprehensive but the one
thing that had been left out was whether the instructor knew the subject =
of
the communication. That is where things have to start; one can not
communicate effectively unless the subject is known. The more important
question is how is anyone going to check this? Is the Senate Council or
the Undergraduate Studies Committee going to send a representative into
each class in which a department has an oral communication component to
assure that all of this is being done? There is no way other than that o=
f
assuring this.

Professor Applegate said in regard to who would teach the course, the
criteria said that students would receive instruction from an individuals
with formal or specialized training in oral communication. This does not
mean the instructor must have a degree or have taken formal courses,
however, the instructor must have acquired sufficient knowledge through
activities such as workshops, individual consultations, cooperative
programs, and the like with professionals in the field. =20

In regard to the second issue, the second paragraph under Rationale reads=
:
The committee also recommends for purposes of evaluation the following
procedure be followed. The principles and objectives will be forwarded t=
o
responsible units with a request for a written statement concerning the
ways in which the various units are following the guidelines. Upon
receipt of written statements about the methods used by the various units=
,
the USP Committee may request additional information through interviews a=
nd
conversations with appropriate individuals in the unit. Where difference=
s
occur regarding the interpretation of the principles and/or objectives, t=
he
committee will use every effort to reach consensus. If the committee
believes that the program in a specific unit is not substantially followi=
ng
the guidelines set forth it will provide the unit with an opportunity to
adjust its program so as to rectify the situation. So there is a procedu=
re
outlined in there. He said he was not on the University Studies Committe=
e,
but they employed a similar procedure to assess the writing component in
the University Studies program when he was on the committee to get feedba=
ck
to see if people were observing the requirements. =20

Carolyn Brock asked if the first item meant that any course used to fill
the oral communications requirement must be taught by a person who has
qualifications to be judged by someone unspecified in Oral Communications.

Louis Swift (Undergraduate Studies) said that what they were trying to do
was to make sure that the people who are responsible for oral communicati=
on
have some knowledge of what the objectives are and some knowledge about h=
ow
to achieve them. That does not mean a degree in Communications, but it
does mean that the department that has developed an alternate route has
consulted with knowledgeable individuals and the obvious people are peopl=
e
in communications either here or at other institutions and developed a
program which people are knowledgeable about and know how to teach and
assess. The important thing is to endorse the alternate routes and make
sure that the people who are running the alternate routes know what they
are doing. Professor Brock said that the requirement stated that it was
based on criteria that could be written down or certified rather than
whether they could communicate or teach to communicate. Professor Swift
stated that the committee will try to determine whether an individual wh=
o
is teaching the oral communications component has some knowledge. The US=
P
Committee wants the department or the unit to tell them how they are doin=
g
it. They are not particularly concerned about whether departments do it
the same way; they are asking what are the objectives, how are they
achieving them, and what are the methods they are using to assess whether
or not you are achieving them.=20

Mike Friedman (Fine Arts) said he did not understand item number four und=
er
the general principles which talks about the ability to communicate with
audiences outside specific disciplines. He did not know how that would b=
e
evaluated by people in the College of Communications.

Professor Swift said that one of the ways it could be done would be to
indicate that the students that are being trained are able to communicate
in an area other than their own particular profession. That an individua=
l
can use interpersonal communications with an audience that is broader tha=
n
the specifics of the profession. That could be done by exercises in a
particular course that involve colleagues, professors, or with people
outside the University. The purpose of this is general communicative
skills, not professional communicative ability in a particular area.

Jesse Weil asked for explanation of item two under Objectives. Professo=
r
Applegate said it was a typing error and should read =93of one=92s audien=
ce=94.

The question was called. The vote to end debate passed in a voice vote.

The proposal passed in a voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 4: Proposal to create a grade of CR (credit) to reflect the
credit granted for a pass in AP or CLEP work.=20

Proposal
The =93pass=94 (P) designator for AP or CLEP or bypass work be assigned a=
grade
of CR (credit) to reflect that credit is granted for a course.

Background
Currently, some CLEP and AP credits are designated with the P grade. Sin=
ce
P is a grade within the university system, and since P grades are not
allowed for credit toward the major in some disciplines, there is a probl=
em
in the degree audit system if AP or CLEP credit is used for major work.
Degree audit can be programmed to allow CR to count for work toward the
major without changing the policy for UK courses taken P/F.

This will not affect those records where letter grades are awarded for
certain CLEP and AP scores.

The proposal has been approved by the Senate Committee on Admissions and
Academic Standards and the Senate Council and is recommended to the Senat=
e.

Implementation Date: Fall Semester,=20

The Chair recognized Jim Applegate to introduce the next item. Professor
Applegate reviewed the background of the item and recommended approval on
behalf of the Senate Council.

There was no discussion. The motion passed in an unanimous voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 5: Proposal to place undeclared students not affiliated with =
a
college under the Dean of Undergraduate Studies for purposes of advising
and for decisions concerning academic status.

Proposal
Undeclared students not associated with a particular college shall no
longer be enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences. They shall be
under the Dean of Undergraduate Studies who shall be responsible for
providing appropriate advising and shall make decisions about the academi=
c
status of these students until such time as they gain entrance to the
college of their choice.

Background
With the establishment of the Central Advising & Transfer Center in 1993,
undeclared students have received much needed academic attention.
Individuals who are seeking a major or who are in transition from one maj=
or
to another are now able to obtain timely guidance from a corps of eleven
dedicated professionals. When the CATC was started, however, no changes
were made in the University=92s regulations regarding the academic home o=
f
undeclared undergraduates. Officially, all students without a major
continue to be registered to the College of Arts & Sciences and all
official actions (suspensions, probations, record keeping, etc.) are hous=
ed
in that college. =20

This arrangement is not satisfactory. Both the College of Arts and
Sciences and the Office of Undergraduate Studies are unhappy with a syste=
m
which separates advising from other formal academic activities and from
student record keeping. Not only must we constantly exchange records, bu=
t
students are not well served by having to deal with two different offices
regarding their academic status and their progress toward graduation.
Formally, they are bound by the rules and procedures of Arts & Sciences,
but, technically, they obtain advising from the CATC.

The College of Arts and Sciences and the Office of Undergraduate Studies
propose to correct this anomaly by amending the rule that all
undergraduates must be enrolled in an academic college. We propose that
undeclared students be made the responsibility of the Dean of Undergradua=
te
Studies, with official actions regarding their academic life housed in th=
at
office. Once a student has chosen a major, records will be transferred t=
o
the appropriate college and the student will become the responsibility of
the respective dean.

Rationale=20
Both the College of Arts & Sciences and the Office of Undergraduate Studi=
es
have agreed that it is in the best interest of undeclared students not
affiliated with a college to be under the Dean of Undergraduate Studies.
The major reason for this change is that undeclared students (numbering
about 2200 each year) currently are advised by the staff in the Central
Advising and Transfer Center, which is under the direction of the Dean of
Undergraduate Studies. Technically, however, these students are enrolled
in the College of Arts & Sciences where their records are maintained and
where decisions concerning their academic standing are made. In order to
coordinate academic advising and academic decisions for these students an=
d
in order to free the staff in Arts & Sciences to provide better service t=
o
declared majors in that college, both of the affected units (Undergraduat=
e
Studies and Arts & Sciences) endorse the proposed change. Both units are
agreed that this new arrangement will redound to the benefit of the
students. We also request that in those areas where the deans of the
colleges are authorized to take action in reference to students in their
college, the Dean of Undergraduate Studies be authorized to so act in
reference to undeclared students who are not affiliated with a specific
college.

It should be noted that =93undeclared=94 students in this proposal are st=
udents
who are not affiliated with any college. Some students have declared the=
ir
intention to major in a particular college (where they receive advising)
but have not yet chosen or gained access to a particular program or
department. These latter will not be affected by the proposed changes i=
n
any way.

This proposal has been approved by the Senate Council and is recommended =
to
the University Senate.

Implementation Date: Spring Semester, 1997

Chairperson Schach recognized Jim Applegate for introduction of the item.
Professor Applegate review the item and recommended approval on behalf of
the Senate Council.

Louis Swift said this was talking about undeclared students in Arts and
Sciences, they would be the only students affected by this. He said ther=
e
were about two hundred nondegree students in Arts and Sciences and they
would like to include them. Any students who receive advice from any oth=
er
college are not included in the proposal. It has been endorsed both by t=
he
College of Arts and Sciences and the Undergraduate Studies Office. They
are trying to make it easier for students to have their academic status
and their advising tied together. Currently all of these students who ar=
e
undeclared in Arts and Sciences, they number about 2,000-2,200 each year=
,
receive their advising through Central Advising ran by Mary Sue Hoskins.
When they need to find out their academic status, and when decisions need
to made about suspension and probation they have to go to the College of
Arts and Sciences. They are going back and forth between two units on
campus; this does not facilitate advising or coordination. By doing this=
,
some of the resources in Arts and Sciences will be freed up to do a bette=
r
job advising those students who are in Arts and Sciences. The purpose is
not to keep the students in this status any longer than is absolutely
necessary; the whole purpose of central advising is to move students on
into a degree program in a college or department as quickly as it is
reasonable to do.

Michael Tomblyn asked if this was based on enrollment and how the student=
s
will appear in the Registrar=92s computer or is it simply a change by who=
m
they are advised?

Professor Swift said they would have to introduce a different code so tha=
t
the students are not ASUN. Part of the problem now is getting the studen=
ts
who are undeclared the information and advising they need.

Hans Gesund asked about the students who had been suspended or dropped fr=
om
a college for academic reasons. He said that the proposal only spoke to
students who were coming in undeclared. Professor Swift said that what
would happen if a student were dropped from a college is they would eithe=
r
go into the next college they had chosen or will be in the undeclared
status and therefore be advised by Central Advising.

Louis Swift made the amendment to add the nondegree students to the
proposal. The amendment was seconded.

Connie Wood asked if this included people who were coming in as nondegree
undergraduates that also hold a bachelors degree that are perhaps prepari=
ng
for their professional or graduate degrees. Professor Swift said that it
technically could, but the admissions officer would put them in either in
an undeclared status or in a specific college. The student coming back a=
nd
thinking they want to be in a specific college are likely to be put in by
the admissions officer.

Ali Amoli (Student Senator - Arts and Sciences) asked how many students a=
re
currently under Central Advising and when this proposal is implemented
would they be able to handle 2,000 more students. Professor Swift stated
that these students are currently being advised by Central Advising. Thi=
s
does not change anything about the number of students who will be served.

Mandy Lewis (Student Senator - Social Work) asked how these students woul=
d
be represented in Student Government? Will they vote in elections for a
student senator from Arts and Sciences, or for their perspective college,
or will there will be a new senator representing them? Professor Swift
said that this proposal would have to go the Rules Committee. These
students will be represented but that is something the Rules Committee wi=
ll
have to work out. This is not a college, it is an administrative way of
making sure that the advising and the academic status decisions are put
together so that the students are not going back and forth. The Chair
assured them that they would make certain there was representation for
these students.

The question was moved. The motion to stop discussion passed in a voic=
e
vote.

The amended passed in an unanimous voice vote.

Jesse Weil said that this would obviously require some resources in the
Dean of Undergraduate Studies to keep these records. Is it clear that th=
ey
are going to get new resources; they spoke of Arts and Sciences being abl=
e
to use present resources to other purposes. Professor Swift answered yes.

The amended motion passed in a voice vote.

The last agenda item to change the effective date of the plus/minus gradi=
ng
system in the Graduate School was moved to the April 14, 1997 meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.


Betty J. Huff
University Registrar











=09



=20








=20


=09
=09
=09