MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL 13, 1998


The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., April 13, 1998,
in the Auditorium of the W. T. Young Library.

Professor Jim Applegate, Chairperson of the Senate Council presided.

Members absent were: Debra Aaron, Jim Albisetti, M. Mukhtar Ali, Kimberly
Anderson*, Leon Assael, Ben Bogia, Douglas Boyd, Fitzgerald Bramwell, Scott
Brown, Geza Bruckner, Joseph Burch, Johnny Cailleteau, Edward Carter,
Jordan Cohen, Susan DeCarvalho, Philip DeSimone*, Anthony English*, Robert
Farquhar, William Freehling, Richard Furst, Hans Gesund*, Jonathan
Golding*, Philip Greasley*, Ellen Hahn, David Hamilton*, Patrick Herring*,
James Holsinger, Patricia Howard, Rick Hoyle*, Raleigh Jones, Jamshed
Kanga, Alan Kaplan, Edward Kasarskis, Craig Koontz, Thomas Lester, Jane
Lindle*, C. Oran Little, Donald Madden, Mark Miller, Josh Mitchell,
Wolfgang Natter, Anthony Newberry, Jacqueline Noonan, Rhoda-Gale Pollack,
Thomas Pope, Shirley Raines, Randall Ratliff, Thomas Robinson, Edgar Sagan,
Donald Sands, David Shipley, Gregory Smith, Edward Soltis, David Stockham,
Louis Swift*, John Thelin*, Michael Tomblyn, Henry Vasconez, William
Wagner, Enid Waldhart*, Thomas Waldhart*, Jesse Weil, Emery Wilson, Eugene
Williams, Stephan Wilson*, Donald Witt*, William Witt.

* Absence Explained

The Chair said that the minutes for March 1998 had been distributed. There
were no corrections or amendments. The minutes were approved as
circulated. The full minutes will be on the WEB.

The Chair recognized Dean Mohney from the College of Architecture for the
following memorial resolution.

Resolution for Associate Professor Paul Pinney, Jr., presented to the
University of Kentucky Senate on Monday, April 13, 1998

Paul--"Pete"--Pinney defined the goals of the College of Architecture at
the University of Kentucky for almost all of his adult life. He was one of
the first graduates of the College, in 1965, and set a standard for the
College's high aspirations when he left Lexington for a graduate degree in
Historic Preservation at Columbia University. Upon completing that degree,
he reinforced those high aspirations when he was awarded a Fellowship in
Architecture at the American Academy in Rome.

But upon completion of his academic work, Pete came back to Kentucky. A
native of Lexington, this commonwealth held a great place in his life, and
the College in particular became the focus of his energies and attentions.
Over the years, Pete served very ably in a variety of administrative posts,
primarily as an Associate Dean of the College. In that capacity he improved
the circumstances of many students and faculty members. I can attest
personally to the high quality of the counsel that he provided, as I sought
him out repeatedly for advice on issues.

But it was in his teaching that Pete found his true calling. He quickly
became one of the great design studio professors, and many graduates of the
College remember the keen anticipation they felt as his studio approached
in the course sequence, and how they competed to be assigned to a place in
it. Those who were selected found their high hopes rewarded. Pete's
teaching method was spare, clear, focused; he knew when to offer criticism
and when to not say anything, allowing the student to work through a design
issue on their own. More often than not, this led to a transcendent moment
of enlightenment for cadres of students, and they remember him as a
"teacher's teacher," in the words of one distinguished alumni. Pete had the
gift of finding the underlying simplicity and elegance in a student
project, and showing the student how to extract those virtues in their
designs. Out of a confluence of theory, precedent and invention, Pete
showed students how to make architecture as art.

Pete described architecture in this manner:

The architect begins his work, immersed in human history, guided by a sense
of its continuity, and focused on the intent and hope of making place an
embodiment of the past and future in the present. The landscape as found,
by its structure, form, and scale, is given its own particular
characteristics of place by time and the seasons, and is the first physical
order for the receiving of man-made invention. Its boundaries are the
horizon and the ever-changing plane of the sky. Therefore, a point located
in that landscape is both fixed and transitory in the beginning. At that
moment one is concerned with the simultaneous consideration of order and
existence-horizontal and vertical; solid and void; inside; outside; and in
between; as well as path and arrival, and the formal disposition of spaces
which contain life and hold in them memory, speculation, illusion and
wonder. The technical means is assumed and the perception of that
possibility in every case predates the technical realization. The drawings
and models by which this is studied stand for themselves but foremost to
the maker is that they are the means to architecture.

The tragic violence of Pete's death on November 3, 1997 stands in complete
contrast to the gentleness of his life. He is survived by two children,
Antonia and David, a sister in Paducah, Patricia Flynn, and his former
wife, Julia Smyth-Pinney.

The Chair asked the Senate to stand for a moment of silence.

The Chair recognized Professor Jim Knoblett from the Carol Martin Gatton
College of Business and Economics for the following memorial resolution.

William W. Ecton, Arthur Andersen & Co. Professor of Accountancy

Professor William W. "Bill" Ecton 69, husband of Joan C. Ecton, for 44
years, died at home March 22, 1998. Bill was born in Winchester, Kentucky
and graduated from Lafayette High School in Lexington in 1946. He served
with the US Army in Korea from 1946-47. He received a BS in Commerce from
the University of Kentucky in 1951, his MBA ( also from UK) in 1960, and
his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri in 1966.

Bill Ecton was a faculty member at UK from 1957 when he was first appointed
as an Instructor until his recent retirement. He rose through the ranks and
achieved the rank of Professor in 1970. He was the first Chairman of the
Department of Accounting beginning in 1966 and served in that capacity
until 1974 when he became Acting Dean of the College of Business and
Economics. He became Dean in 1976 and served in that capacity through 1980.
Bill returned to the Accounting Department to teach auditing in the Fall of
1981 after serving as a Visiting Distinguished Professor at the University
of Hawaii. Back teaching, he was named the Outstanding Teacher of the Year
by Beta Alpha Psi in 1983 and by Beta Gamma Sigma in 1984. Bill was honored
in 1987 with the first professorship in the School of Accountancy when he
was named the Arthur Andersen & Co. Professor of Accountancy, and Beta
Alpha Psi honored him as an Outstanding Alumnus in 1992. His legacy was
also attested to by the fact that Bill was recently honored when he was
inducted into the UK Carol Martin College of Business and Economics Alumni
Hall of Fame.

The career of Bill Ecton is noteworthy for several reasons. First, of
course, are the legions of ex-students throughout the Commonwealth and far
beyond. Countless professional accountants and accounting executives still
share stories of the challenges they faced in his undergraduate auditing
classes. Hundreds of Masters in Accountancy graduates are grateful for his
contributions to their graduate education and over 100 doctorates at
universities and colleges world-wide remember him fondly.

Second most noteworthy has to be the building of the original Department of
Accounting at the University of Kentucky. When given the go-ahead to begin
hiring faculty, Bill went out and recruited A. W. Patrick from the
University of Michigan, Jim Knoblett from the University of Washington, Don
Madden from the University of Texas, and P. Michael Davis from Illinois.
Shortly after, he hired Levis McCullers from the University of Florida and
Relmond VanDaniker from the University of Maryland. Seldom has anyone put
together a group with such distinguished credentials in such a short period
of time, and accomplishing the task given the supply and demand for
accounting faculty at the time was an amazing feat. The new department was
off to a good start due to Bill Ecton, and its accomplishments over the
ensuing years have attested to the quality base of outstanding faculty that
he established at that time.

Another milestone for Bill was his early interest in international efforts.
He was one of the first to establish academic ties with the Republic of
Indonesia, visiting there while dean in the late '70s - becoming a pioneer
in what has become a major thrust of the modern-day Carol Martin Gatton
College of Business and Economics and, more specifically, the School of
Accountancy. The University of Kentucky, the Carol Martin Gatton College of
Business and Economics, the School of Accountancy and its alumni owe much
to Professor William W. Ecton.

The Chair asked the Senate to stand for a moment of silence.

Chairperson Applegate made the following announcements:

The Board of Trustees agreed to retain four members on the Presidential
Search Committee, although they did designate one from the Lexington
Community College, which was different than what had been suggested. There
will be four faculty on the next Presidential Search Committee.

The Senate Council has suggested a change in the ARs. As you know, the
portfolio already requires evaluation of advising, and the Council is
suggesting that student evaluations of advising be a part of the portfolio.

The Chair introduced Paul Willis and thanked him for letting the Senate
meet in the library.

Paul Willis made the following remarks:

This is the first serious meeting in this room. Mary Molinaro, if you
would please stand? Mary will be outside after the meeting if anyone would
like to take a look around. =20

I would like to thank the faculty and students for helping with this
project. We had a lot of people who not only contributed to the building
campaign but to the library endowment. Not only do we have the building in
place; there is also a $5,000,000 book endowment. We anticipate that this
is going to rise. I told the Chair of the Senate Library Committee, David
Durant, that he and his committee could take credit for the building today.
They worked with us very carefully over the past few years, and we
appreciate that.

The Chair made the following remarks:

I would like to remind the Senate of what has been done this year.
Sometimes in the ongoing struggles of trying to achieve progress, the
wheels of progress turn slowly and we forget.

First of all, in terms of our external work this year, there was more
external work than usual because of the special session of the legislature
and regular session of the legislature, which dealt with a lot of issues of
deep concern to the faculty, students, and administration of the University
of Kentucky. Working together with the Coalition of Senate Faculty Leaders
in the state under the able leadership of Loys Mather, we worked to put a
voting faculty member on the new Council on Postsecondary Education. I
hope that Merl Hackbart might be here next year to speak to the Senate. He
has been regularly meeting with COSFL. That certainly may be one of the
most important things we did in terms of getting a strong faculty voice in
the form of Merl as our first representative on that council.

We did succeed in having rescinded what I felt was an ill-advised form of
post-tenure review. We met long hours with those involved and ultimately
that was rescinded and pulled back, and there is no post-tenure review
legislation at this session, although I think we still have some work to do
in that area.

We worked hard to amend legislation to ensure this University would have an
active role in the new virtual university that the Governor is excited
about and also that our statewide mission was preserved.

We will be acting today, in one way or another on some beginning pieces of
Senate Rules, to change and integrate Lexington Community College into this
institution in a way somewhat different than it has been in the past. I am
hopeful that after these initial changes are made today we will be in a
position to create a really truly model partnership between LCC and this
campus as is the case in Arizona and other parts of the country so that
students are able to access the best of both campuses.

We worked very diligently to suggest changes in the Merit Scholarship Bill
over which there was much debate. There was some concern initially that
the bill was going to provide resources to those who needed it least and
deny resources to those who needed it most. As the bill turned out,
although not perfect, it does fully fund the needs based scholarship
program in this state for those who are truly in need of support to go to
college.

We also worked with the collective bargaining bill to ensure its fate.

We supported very strongly the creation of a staff trustee member on the
Board of Trustees. We take no credit for that. It was totally done by
staff at this University, but we did support that.

Internally, in addition to the normal raft of academic issues as you see on
the agenda today that we need to deal with every session, in terms of
program changes, academic and curriculum changes, and admission changes,
all of which are important to us, we addressed in our October meeting the
plus/minus grading issue. We also worked very diligently with many of you
on the faculty and the Senate Council met regularly with the President to
bring what we think was the correct conclusion to what is now known as the
"arena debate." We have worked with the Promotion and Tenure Task Force
reports such that as of today we have eliminated the prior service
provision. The Administration is working and supporting our recommendation
for the interruption of service provision so that faculty that have family,
medical, or professional crisis can in fact have that acknowledged during
their probationary period. Today, hopefully we will have a discussion in
what I hope will represent a change in the way we think about promotion and
tenure on this campus, recognizing the multiple forms of scholarship that
faculty must engage in during the '90s and beyond. Finally I think there
were a lot of you as senators that were involved, and I certainly was, in
the development of this University's Strategic Plan and a Graduate
Education Task Force. At times I felt those initiatives were another job
in addition to being Senate Chair. I think that we have come up with a
strategic plan that is much more a product of the campus. I do appreciate
the Senate Chairs who met with their committees on short notice and
provided thoughtful multiple page responses to the plan in its current
form. I met with Joan McCauley and will soon meet with the President and
some of those changes are going to be effective. I think that we had a
dramatic impact on the Strategic Plan.=20

As the philosopher Wittgenstein, I believe, said--there are two parts to
what he said. He said "that there were two parts to what he said; that
which he said and that which he did not say and it was the latter that was
always the most important." In some ways I think that is always true of
the Senate. This year has flown by for me. There are things we have done
and things we have not yet done and it is probably the latter part that are
equally important that we need to continue with. I am hopeful still that
we will receive a grant from the American Association of Higher Education
with matching money from the University to engage in a systematic effort
next year to examine post-tenure review issues and career development
issues for faculty. I am also hopeful that the Senate Council can revisit
the faculty retirement issue and early retirement processes. We must
continue with the work on Promotion and Tenure and we have another report
on the Special Title Series faculty, which will be coming to you later.

This was my 21st year at the University of Kentucky. It is wonderful after
that long period of time I can learn so much and meet so many good
colleagues. I want to thank you for the help of the Senate, the Senate
Chairs of the committees, the members of the committees. Some were very
active and some not so active. I think what we have done is reaffirm the
importance in Frankfort and in Lexington and in the Administration Building
of shared governance at the University of Kentucky. You have read many
articles that nationally this concept seems to be in a bit of trouble. I
do not think that it is in trouble here. We can not let it become fatal or
withered. Shared governance is a key part of what makes an academic
culture academic. I appreciate your efforts with me this year to help keep
that idea alive.

Chairperson Applegate was given a round of applause.

ACTION ITEM 1: Proposal to rescind action of the Senate taken February 10,
1997, to establish a plus/minus grading system for The Graduate School.

Proposal:
Motion to rescind the motion passed by the Senate on February 10, 1997 to
establish a plus/minus grading system for The Graduate School.

Rationale:
After Senate passage of a plus/minus system of grading for the Graduate
School including an A+, the Senate then later agreed to delay
implementation of the system until Fall of 1998 at the request of the
Graduate School. In light of developments since that time the Graduate
council and the Graduate Faculty have requested that the original motion be
rescinded and the Graduate School be allowed to retain the current whole
grade system. The Senate council unanimously supports the motion to=
rescind.

Implementation: Immediate

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

There was no discussion.

The motion passed in a unanimous voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 2: Rules changes related to new relationship between Lexington
Community College and the University of Kentucky

PROPOSAL: [See attached]

RATIONALE:
The attached four proposals have been forwarded by a special transition
team of faculty from the University Senate Council and the Lexington
Community College to effect the minimum changes needed before July 1 to
assure a smooth transition in altering the status of the Lexington
Community College (LCC) in relation to the University of Kentucky. The
Senate has already voted to alter its composition to accommodate
integration of LCC faculty. These additional items are proposed with the
understanding that more proposals will be forthcoming from the team during
the 1998-99 academic year to enhance the partnership between the two
campuses. The most detailed of the current proposals (item 4) establishes
an Academic Council for LCC modeled after the current Academic Council in
the Medical Center. Like the Medical Center Council, this one is designed
to address special academic issues of the College but remains a Council of
the Senate reporting to the Senate Council and the Senate. The four
proposals come with the unanimous recommendation of the Senate Council.

The Senate Council requests waiver of the ten-day circulation for
consideration of this proposal.

Note: If approved this exemption would take effect in the fall, 1998,
semester.=20

Chairperson Applegate recognized Lee Meyer for introduction of the item.
Professor Meyer reviewed the background of the item and recommended
approval on behalf of the Senate Council.

There was no discussion.
=09
The motion passed in a unanimous voice vote.

* Contact Senate Council
=20
ACTION ITEM 3: Exemption to uniform grading system for Landscape
Architecture and the College of Architecture

PROPOSAL:
The College of Architecture and the program in Landscape Architecture have
requested exemption from the uniform whole grade system to be implemented
for undergraduate students in Fall, 1998, for their 800 and 900 level
courses so that they can continue with their current grading system
employing plus/minus grades in those courses (only). The proposals were
forwarded to the Senate Council by the Senate Admissions and Academic
Standards Committee. No Committee member present voted again the
proposals. This proposal comes from the Senate Council with no
recommendation.=20

The Senate Council requests waiver of the ten-day circulation for
consideration of this proposal.

RATIONALE:
The rationale from the Landscape Architecture program follows. It directly
parallels the arguments made by the College of Architecture.

=B7 The design studios, which are the central focus of the curriculum,
represent a six credit hour course per semester. With such a large number
of quality points available for one course each semester, the plus/minus
system allows for more accurate evaluation and reward for the student.
While this may be difficult to quantify, the students recognize the benefit
of the grading system.
=20
=B7 Landscape Architecture students are not allowed to advance to the next
studio level unless they earn a "C" or better in any given studio or site
engineering course. In practice, each student falling below this level is
given an opportunity to appeal his or her suspension. Students present
their cases before the faculty along with reasons why they should be
allowed to continue in the program. This policy causes students with a
"C-" to reevaluate their motivation and commitment to their academic
pursuits. Should a student decide that this is not the appropriate major,
they can exit with a "C-" in a 6 credit hour course without a serious loss
of quality points. This type of close monitoring provides timely
counseling and contributes to the 80-85% retention rate for this five year
program.
=20
=B7 A significant role of the plus/minus grade is to encourage each student'=
s
full participation throughout the semester. The studio semester is divided
into a series of projects and exercises, which may last from 2-6 weeks in
duration. Students need the incentive to continually strive for excellence
throughout a project even if a project is the last one of the semester and
would not have sufficient value to elevate the grade standing by a full
letter grade. The plus/minus grading system allows the flexibility to more
accurately evaluate the student's performance. Tied to this is the fact
that many projects involve team efforts and may involve "real world"
clients. Without the plus/minus grade, a student may choose to redirect
his or her energy to other courses toward the end of the semester because
there is no hope of elevating the grade to the next full letter which then
places fellow teammates or the reputation of the program at risk. The
plus/minus grading system offers the potential to recognize excellence in
student work with much greater detail than the whole letter system and is
essential in a program such as this which relies so heavily on student=
output.
=20
=B7 The impact of the Landscape Architecture Program's reputation on a
national level has to do with its graduates entering graduate school. Due
to the diverse nature of the subject matter, virtually no student excels in
all areas with straight "As. The better students generally attain a
3.25-3.75 GPA. As a result, students applying to graduate schools do so in
the "B" average range. It is critical to the reputation of this program
that a distinction is made between the student attaining an 80 average
versus the student who earned an 89 average.

Note: If approved this exemption would take effect in the fall, 1998
semester.=20

The Chair recognized Professor Meyer for introduction of the item.
Professor Meyer reviewed the background of the item and stated this
proposal comes from the Senate Council with no recommendation.

The Chair asked for a waiver for the ten-day circulation rule for
consideration of the proposal and recognized a student for the following
resolution.

RESOLUTION

The students of the College of Architecture and the Landscape Architecture
Department resolve that the discussion of the plus/minus grading system
used in these programs be heard today. If the Senate fails to hear this
issue today the plus/minus grading system currently in use will be
terminated as of Fall 1998. The overwhelming support of the students and
faculty of these programs for the plus/minus grading system is evident by
the number of students standing before you today. If our concerns are not
recognized, we the students feel our quality of education will be=
jeopardized.

There was a motion to waive the ten-day circulation rule. The motion
passed in a voice vote.

The Chair recognized Jed Porter from Architecture for the following remarks:

Let me explain the context for this request. Towards the end of spring
semester 1997 nearly a year ago as the debate about grades drew to an end,
Horst Schach and I addressed the Senate Council and sought exemptions from
the uniform policy for grades from undergraduate programs. We were assured
that both the program in Landscape Architecture and the College of
Architecture were exempt because they offered professional degrees and were
viewed as similar in status to professional schools, which have been
allowed to determine their own policies about grades. Since we assumed
that these programs were exempt we did not seek any clarification about
policy from the Senate during the session when a uniform policy was
adopted. The Rules Committee later determined that the Senate Council
lacked the authority to grant an exemption and they found themselves
obliged to renew our request for exemptions. We have neither the desire to
revive the debate about the merits of plus/minus nor the intention to undo
the Senate's efforts to formulate a uniform policy. We only seek
permission to retain our policy that allows the faculty to award grades
with pluses and minuses. We adopted a system with pluses and minuses
during fall semester 1978 nearly twenty years ago because we believed that
system would be the most effective way to evaluate our students'
performance and indeed it has been. Our students and faculty alike have
recognized its value. The Senate's approval of our request for an
exemption would have a negligible impact elsewhere. Because our program is
professional access to our courses is limited. Nearly all of our courses
are 800 and 900 level courses and are available only to students who have
been admitted to the College of Architecture. Your approval of our request
would allow us to enjoy the benefits of a system that has served us well.
During the past twenty years our program has earned favorable reputation
nationally for its excellence in architectural education. Our students
have usually been hired by the most highly regarded firms and have been
regularly admitted to the most prestigious programs for advanced studies in
design and history and theory of architecture. We have retained over 80%
of our students, approximately 30% higher than the University of Kentucky's
own rate. Your approval would allow us to continue these efforts while
relying on a system which has served us well for nearly two decades. This
request has been approved by the majority of the faculty and students of
the College of Architecture and I respectfully urge the Senate to grant its
approval as it has done when faculty and students in professional programs
have requested changes in policy. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

The Chair recognized Professor Horst Schach for the following remarks:

Twenty years ago I came before this body and asked to initiate a plus/minus
grading system at which time it was enthusiastically approved and as Jed
pointed out we have been using it for twenty years and never do I recall a
single complaint from any student about the plus/minus grading system.=20

You do have written justification in your packet. I would share some of
the comments that Jed made about our retention rate. It is also 80-85% for
our program. Design programs up until the 1970s had huge mortality rates.
We are talking about 85% of the people being weeded out. Then dean of the
College of Architecture, Dean Urdy worked on this whole system of student
management. From selective mission to the professional course numbers and
part of the package was the plus/minus grading system. With all that we
turned it around to an 85% retention rate and I think that it has worked
out very well.

I will be happy to answer any questions. But I would like to defer to the
students. I would like for all the Architecture and Landscape Architecture
students to please raise your hand. As far as Landscape Architecture
students are concerned this is a very popular major for second career
people or nontraditional students. I have heard rumors that we browbeat
these folks into giving an 86% approval rate of this proposal. Roughly 65%
of our students are either classified as seniors or already have previous
degrees and I frankly do not think that you browbeat those folks into a
whole lot.

Bill Fortune (Law) said that he was in favor of the proposal but wanted a
point of clarification. The proposal states that this is only for 800 and
900 level courses. The Chair said that was all the Senate Council is
recommending. There are a couple of courses that are not 800 and 900 level
but they are not under when the Senate Council is recommending. Professor
Fortune asked if they were satisfied with limited it to 800 and 900 level
courses. It seemed logical it they have been doing this way for all these
years and it has not caused any problems and the students and faculty want
it that there is no good reason to deny them the right to have it.

Mark Ison (Student Senator - Fine Arts) would like to thank all the
students who came out today. It is good they were willing to come and
support their opinion on this issue. He would like to present another
student's opinion on this. The Senate voted in the fall to have a uniform
grading system for the University and while our distinguished professor
here has assured us that he does not want to rock the boat and that is not
what he is trying to change, what else is this? Nothing differentiates
these two programs from any other programs in the University. In the
rationale it talks about six hour studio courses and quality points. There
are four-hour courses in USP. There are physics courses for USP that are
five hours. Social Work students have to take eight-hour practicum. There
is nothing different about these things. It says it is a professional
program, how many professional programs get their reputation from students
going to graduate school. That is what undergraduate students do. That is
not a professional program, whether it says it is or not. It is the spirit
of the law versus the letter of the law. It says that plus/minus helps
identify students who should not be in the program. Students who should
not be in the program reveal themselves in plenty of other ways.
Especially because of the real world experience that is talked about in the
rationale. Students who have what it takes to succeed in another degree,
to graduate and students who have what it takes to get into the Landscape
Architecture or Architecture programs because they are very difficult do
not need to be motivated by plus/minus to keep going down the stretch.
There is a visible difference in students who make an 80 average and a
student who makes an 89, you can see it in classes and in all their
activities. You do not need plus/minus to tell these things.
Identification of these students could be better achieved by better
advising, especially if people in the program are willing to take note of
what these students are doing and taking more of an active role in their
studies. Fine Arts also had plus/minus for almost twenty years, but they
are not asking for an exemption because they recognize the need for a
uniform system that can be put on transcripts and tell other colleges that
this is how all students are graded. Graduate schools look at other things
besides the GPA when admitting. The level of the student is going to show,
in work, extra curricular activities, and recommendations. These are the
types of things that matter. The Senate voted in the fall to have a
uniform grading system and he appeals to the members of the Senate to not
change their decision now.

Les Olson (Student Senator - Architecture) said that in response to the
comment about the studios and six-hour credit classes. He realizes that
other courses have the courses, but they have them every year and for
Architecture they make up one-third of the major. It is not about studios,
it is about the fact that 800 and 900 level courses are described in the
schedule of classes as open to professional colleges and to students in
other colleges offering professional degrees. In LA and Architecture there
are only three courses available in the fall that are not 800 or 900 level.

Doug Poe (Business and Economics) said that they spent a lot of time in the
Senate Council debating this issue and he has been on both sides of the
issue at different times. While he recognizes the tradition, the arguments
they are hearing are the same arguments they heard in the plus/minus
debate. What finally lead the Senate Council to bring this without a
recommendation was that they could not bring the exemption in such a way
that they could prohibit other colleges from coming in with a majority of
their students and they could not prohibit other colleges from coming and
changing their courses to 800 and 900 level, they can not prohibit them
from saying they are professional programs. They named several in the
Senate Council that could make as good an argument for that as Architecture
and Landscape Architecture. The sentiment in the Senate Council was that
in this whole plus/minus debate someone is going to be hurt and unless the
argument could be framed in some terms other than a popularity contest then
they were simply opening the door to spend all next year listening to other
colleges coming in and wanting an exemption.

Tom Blues (English) said that the Senate took up the question of whether
there should be grade system mixing and it was decided that they did not
want that. They wanted a system across the board where people who would be
cutting across colleges and in various units should be graded by the same
system. They went on to decide what would be the best system and agreed on
one. It seems that the proposal coming from Architecture and Landscape
Architecture is perfectly consistent with what they did before. They are
saying they have professional programs and are asking for a system for
students who are not going to be in other programs, they are going to be in
these 800 and 900 level courses and they propose the following system. It
seems presumptuous of people outside that system to judge it; it is their
decision. The Senate should be consistent and go ahead and approve their
request.

The question was asked if during the twenty years if the six year reviews
had ever sighted the plus/minus and whether or not it is important or not?

Kaveh Tagavi (Engineering) said that he agreed with the senator who said if
they wanted plus/minus why not give it to them. The last time they had
action about plus/minus the most important driving force was uniformity.
In the past there were differences between colleges, now this is going to
create a different system in the same college.

The question was moved and seconded. The motion to call the question
passed in a voice vote.

The item passed in a hand count vote.

ACTION ITEM 4: Proposed changes to University Senate Rules, Section IV -
4.2.2.10 College of Engineering Admissions, specifically Civil Engineering.

Proposal
4.2.2.10 College of Engineering: {Delete bracketed sections; add bold,
underlined sections}

Civil Engineering - [Completion of] Applicants must have completed at least
[50] 45 semester hours acceptable towards the degree [with a minimum
cumulative grade-point average of 2.5]. [Completion of] Furthermore,
applicants must have completed ENG 101 and ENG 102 or ENG 105 or the Honors
Program; CHE 105, CHE 107, PHY 231, [PHY 232,] PHY 241, [PHY 242], MA 113,
MA 114, MA 213, [and MA 214] CE 106, CE 120 and CE 211 or equivalent with a
minimum cumulative grade-point-average (GPA) of [2.50] 2.75 in these
courses. [A grade of C or better must also be earned in all civil
engineering courses which have been attempted if these courses are to be
credited towards meeting degree requirements.] University repeat options
may be utilized [as appropriate] by both on-campus and transfer students.
Students who do not meet this [these] GPA requirement[s] may request
consideration based on a departmental review if [both of these] this
GPA['s] is 2.25 or better. A student may not apply for engineering
standing more than twice.

Rationale
The current criteria used to evaluate admission into Engineering Standing
are sometimes not met until the second semester of junior year. This can
occur since engineering standing is only a prerequisite for the 400 and 500
level CE courses. This is very late for those students not accepted into
the program. A fairness issue arises since most civil engineering junior
year courses are not acceptable in any other degree program. Consequently,
the civil engineering department has decided to hasten the decision process
by including only the first three semesters of coursework. This should
result in an earlier evaluation and response to potential civil engineering
students. A student who is denied admission to Engineering Standing will
have fewer excess courses from the perspective of other degree programs.
If this proposal is approved, the civil engineering department will extend
engineering standing prerequisite to several 300 level courses, which
should enhance student learning in these classes.

These changes have been approved by the Engineering Faculty, the Senate
Admissions and Academic Standards Committee and the Senate Council and are
forwarded to the Senate for final consideration.

Implementation Date: Fall, 1998

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

George Blandford (Engineering) said that they wanted to move the decision
process from the junior year to the first semester sophomore year. A large
number of courses students end up being almost seniors by the time they get
to that status. The 300 level courses will do them no good in any other
major. This is a student friendly proposal. They are trying to make the
decision process sooner and quicker for the students, so they know their
status in the program and can move on to other programs it they are not
going to be successful.

The motion was approved in a unanimous voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 5: Proposed Technical Standards from the University of
Kentucky Colleges of Allied Health Professions, Nursing, and Pharmacy.

Proposal:
The attached proposed technical standards from the University of Kentucky
Colleges of Allied Health Profession: Nursing, and Pharmacy 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.

Attachments

Implementation: July 1, 1998

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

The proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.

* Contact Senate Council
ACTION ITEM 6: Proposed changes to University Senate Rules, Section IV -
Undergraduate Admissions Criteria, College of Nursing.=20

Background and Rationale:
The College of Nursing Undergraduate Student Admission and Progressions
Committee presented for approval of the College of Nursing faculty, the
attached changes in admissions criteria on October 31, 1997. They were
approved by the faculty and forwarded to the Academic Council for the
Medical Center. =20

In the previous revision, the College added an essay to the admission
requirements. The College found that it was helpful in identifying
noncognitive factors that predict success in the nursing program. Based on
input from current faculty, current students, and admissions experts in the
University, the College proposes the addition of a reference to the
admission criteria to ascertain other pertinent noncognitive factors such
as determination, leadership skills, realistic self-appraisal, social
interest/compassion, social support, and coping and communication skills.
By considering such factors in addition to quantitative factors such as ACT
and GPA, the College hopes to create a student body that more closely
mirrors the client populations they serve and which represents the total
composite of characteristics that professional nurses should possess.
Additionally, study of graduates indicates that students with less than a
2.5 and low grades in science related courses have difficulty with initial
success on the national board exam. This is the reason for the 2.5 GPA for
admission at the sophomore level.

The proposal has been approved by the Senate Committee on Academic
Organization and Structure and the Senate Council.

Implementation Date: Fall Semester, 1998

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

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

The proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.

* See Senate Council
ACTION ITEM 7: Proposed changes to University Senate Rules, Section IV -
4.2.1.3 Non-Degree Students

Background and Rationale
The following rules changes for non-degree students were suggested by Mary
Sue Hoskins, Director of Central Advising at the bequest of Vice-Chancellor
David Watt. These changes were suggested to improve the advising process
for non-degree students and to firmly enforce the maximum 24-semester
credit hour rule in the non-degree status. The eight credit hour rule has
been dropped since it is not enforced and it does prevent non-degree
students from attending the university on a full-time basis. Furthermore,
these rule changes are intended to send the strong message that non-degree
students are enrolled at the University of Kentucky, they have not been
accepted into the University of Kentucky. Suggestions have also been
received by the Evening and Weekend program and the Colleges of Business
and Economics and Education.=20

The changes are recommended by the Senate Admissions and Academic Standards
Committee and the Senate Council.

Proposal: {Delete strikethrough words. Add the bolded words.}

Section IV 4.2.1.3 Non-Degree Students

4.2.1.3.1 Goal: (US: 10/11/93)=09
The goal of the University of Kentucky policy for non-degree students is to
provide appropriate access to academic courses for students who would like
to continue their education, but who do not wish to seek a degree.
Although degree seeking students should have top priority in terms of
utilization of University resources, the University does wish to provide
access to these resources on a space available basis for non-degree seeking
students. This policy will provide reasonable access to a broader range of
students without unnecessarily limiting University resources for degree
seeking students.

Non-degree status affords an opportunity for individuals to pursue lifelong
learning without the structure of degree seeking status and is consistent
with the educational mission of this University.
Most non-degree students are considered "Lifelong Learners" and include the
following groups: Donovan Scholars, students who have already earned
degrees and non-traditional students who wish to begin their studies as
non-degree students in order to be considered for degree seeking status=
later.

Other students eligible to enter the University in a non-degree status
include visiting students from other colleges and universities, high school
students of exceptional ability, and other students in special
circumstances as determined by the Director of Admissions. (US: 10/11/93)

4.2.1.3.2 Rules Governing Admission of Non-Degree Seeking Students (US:
10/11/93)

A. To be admitted as a non-degree student, an applicant must meet the
following criteria: the high school class of a non-degree applicant must
have graduated at least two years prior to the applicant's anticipated
semester of enrollment unless the applicant will be on active military duty
during his/her tenure as a non-degree student or the applicant has been
admitted by exception according to IV, 4.2.1.1. (US: 10/11/93)

B. Applicants who have been denied admission, as degree-seeking students
may not in turn be enrolled as non-degree seeking students. (US: 10/11/93)

C. Former University degree seeking students generally will not be enrolled
as non-degree students without having earned an undergraduate degree. (US:
10/11/93)

D. University students under academic or disciplinary suspension may not be
enrolled as non-degree students. (US: 10/11/93)

E. Students currently under suspension at other institutions may not be
enrolled as non-degree students at UK. Failure to disclose a current
suspension may result in forfeiture of eligibility for future enrollment.
(US: 10/11/93)

F. Students are strongly encouraged to submit transcripts of high school or
prior colleges at the time of admission in order to facilitate advising
about appropriate coursework.=20

4.2.1.3.3 Rules Governing Enrollment of Non-Degree Seeking Students (US:
10/11/93)

A. Non-degree students must meet course prerequisites or obtain the consent
of the instructor to enroll in a course.

B. No student may continue to enroll as a non-degree student after earning
24 semester hours in this status without the special permission of the dean
of the college in which the student is registered.

C. Credit earned, as a non-degree student will be evaluated for
applicability toward a degree by the dean of the college in which the
student will be enrolled. Most colleges provide administrative oversight
of their non-degree students. Non-degree students whose registration
status does not reflect affiliation with a particular college will come
under the purview of the Dean for Undergraduate Studies. Successful
completion of course work as a non-degree student does not ensure admission
as a degree-seeking student. No graduate or professional credit is awarded
for courses taken while a student is enrolled as an undergraduate
non-degree student. (US: 3/12/84; 10/11/93)

4.2.1.3.4 Changing Status from Non-Degree to Degree Seeking (US: 10/11/93)

Applicants who have earned fewer than 24 semester credit hours at this
University must meet the University's standards for automatic acceptance as
first-time freshmen. Students who have earned 24 semester hours at UK may
apply for degree seeking status and will be considered as transfer students
for admission purposes. (US: 10/11/93)

4.2.1.3.5 Procedures (US: 10/11/93)

A Evening-Weekend non-degree students may apply for enrollment until noon
on the Saturday before classes begin each semester, although they are
strongly encouraged to do so much earlier. It is preferable for students
to submit applications no later than two weeks before the beginning of
classes. This will provide students with maximum flexibility in making the
decision to enter the University and allow sufficient time for advisors to
provide appropriate and accurate advice to non-degree students and to
ensure that course prerequisites have been met. (US: 10/11/93)

B Non-degree students who wish to take day classes must meet regular
admission deadlines for each term. They are encouraged to participate in
academic advising each semester. Advisors will be assigned to these
students. (US: 10/11/93)

C All non-degree students who wish to continue after their first semester
are expected to participate in advance registration for the following
semester. (US: 10/11/93)

Implementation Date: Fall Semester, 1998

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

Mary Sue Hoskins (Central Advising) said they had asked for an adjustment
of the rules because there are a multitude of non-degree students and she
would call attention to the difference between non-degree and undeclared,
they are not talking about the greater multitude of undeclared students,
but just those who are registered as non-degree. They propose to drop the
eight-hour rule, formally students were confined to taking only eight hours
per term. They propose to change all the wording in the Senate rules that
say students should apply as non-degree and change apply to enroll.
Indicating to students that they are not accepted as degree seeking
students they are merely enrolled. In addition to the enforcement of the
twenty-four hour rule, they rule always was there it was just not enforced,
so that is not a change. The statement that the Dean of Undergraduate
Studies will be the dean of record for any students who would have been
enrolled as non-degree in a college. In the colleges of Arts and Sciences
and Engineering students can not be enrolled as non-degree. In that case
the Dean of Undergraduate Studies would be their dean for the purpose of
suspending or reinstating those students. =20

The proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 8: 1998. Undergraduate Program Changes in the College of
Communications and Information Studies

PROPOSAL: [See attached]

RATIONALE:
The two recommended changes are intended to clarify graduation requirements
as originally intended by the College. The proposals come with the
unanimous recommendation of the Senate Council.

The Senate Council requests waiver of the ten-day circulation for
consideration of this proposal.

Note: If approved this exemption would take effect in the Fall, 1998
semester.=20

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

The proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.

* Contact Senate Council
=20
ACTION ITEM 9: Proposed changes to AR II-1.0-1 S. Lecturers

Proposal: {Delete bracketed sections; add bold underlined sections}

AR II-1.0-1 (Page II-13)\

S. Lecturers

Lecturers are professionally qualified individuals whose services are
contracted primarily for teaching purposes, [normally] on a part-time or
full-time basis, subject to renewal. The appointment of a lecturer is made
by the appropriate chancellor/vice president upon recommendation of the
department chairperson and the dean and without reference to an Area
Committee[,]. [may be for one year or other stated period not to exceed one
year, subject to renewal. Lecturers are not eligible for tenure, membership
in the University Senate, sabbatical leave, or participation in the
University's Retirement Plan. However, 1] Lecturers with full-time
appointments [are eligible for health insurance coverage] may be offered
contracts not to exceed three years, subject to renewal. Full time
lecturers on multi-year contracts receive full UK employee benefits, except
that lecturers are not eligible for tenure, membership in the University
Senate, or sabbatical leave. Faculty membership, with or without voting
privileges, may be extended to lecturers by the educational units to which
they are assigned.

Background and Rationale
This proposal is supported by both the Senate Task Force on Special Title
Faculty Series and the Senate Council. The University, like most, currently
relies heavily on full and part time lecturers to fulfill its teaching
obligations. Currently, these individuals have no job security or benefits
and no hope of same regardless of their level of performance. This is an
attempt to enhance the quality and accountability of the teaching that is
provided by non-tenure tract staff and to treat this important part of the
teaching staff as professionals. The proposal allows for continuity in
appointment and benefits. Departments can hire good people, keep them, and
hold them accountable for good teaching more easily under this system.
Current analyses suggest there are forty to fifty individuals currently
employed who could fall within this category.

Note: If approved, this proposal will be forwarded to the Administration
for inclusion in the Administrative Regulations

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

David Durant (English) said that he was strongly in favor of the proposal.
He would like to offer an amendment that the number of lecturers would not
exceed 10% of the faculty in a college and any increase in the number of
lecturers in a department must be based on the written recommendation of
the tenured faculty of that department.

The amendment was seconded.

Roy Moore (Communications and Information Studies) asked for clarification
of written recommendation. Does that mean approved by or part of the
decision? Professor Moore made a friendly amendment that the number of
lecturers in a department must be approved by written recommendation of the
tenured faculty of that department.

Dan Reedy said that the amendment, while very well intentioned is an
attempt to protect the professor without having an excessive number of
persons who are not tenured within that unit. If they get into the issue,
if it is going to be defined on a 10% of department, if they are headed in
that direction it will not meet the needs to which this was addressed. The
needs were clearly defined. They are speaking here in the broadest sense
of the dignity of many of their colleagues within the university,
particularly in colleges such as the College of Arts and Sciences who have
been treated without dignity over the many years that he has been here.
These are persons who are anxious and willing to serve the university but
without the dignity that is granted to the rest of them of consideration of
benefits or knowing that you have a position year after year. If they are
to approve the amendment let them not move in the direction of tightening
that so much that in a department of fourteen people they would be eligible
for 1.4 lecturers. Ten percent of the college in some environments would
also be somewhat curtailing. He would prefer that this amendment not be
attached to the legislation. The legislation is as meaningful and
important as anything they have done in this body in the last few years.
From the standpoint of their reaching out as regular tenured faculty
members within their units to embrace their colleagues who are there are
7:30 in the morning and late in the afternoon and carrying on many of those
same duties that in most institutions would be tenurable line positions.

Jim Campbell (Fine Arts) asked if it were ten percent FTE or ten percent of
warm bodies. The chair answered FTE.

Brad Canon asked if Professor Durant would accept a friendly amendment
changing it to 20% FTE. Professor Durant answered that was not a necessary
change in that 10 percent is well beyond the numbers that are included.

Mike Cibull said that another way to do that would be to allow the faculty
of the college to make an exception to the ten percent rule themselves.
Was that not a reasonable thing to do?

Fred Danner (Education) asked why have a percentage at all? It seems that
the second sentence takes care of it, faculty input on any increase. The
Chair stated that this was an amendment to the amendment which is to delete
the first sentence and also any increase. It would say the number of
lecturers in a department must be approved based on written recommendation
of the tenured faculty of the department.

Carol Brock (Chemistry) said she was worried about the whole concept after
reading the article in the Kernel today. She does not understand the
economics. She knows how much part-time instructors are paid in Chemistry
and even if they are teaching three or four courses a semester she does not
see how this adds up to the minimum wage. It is clearly in the interest of
some taxpayers, some administrators, and some legislators to decrease the
cost of teaching undergraduates and one way to do that is to have
increasing numbers of lecturers who are not responsible for staying up in
their fields in the way they are. Are not responsible for seeing how the
field is changing so that students ought to be educated in different ways.
This is a dangerous idea.

Robert Molzon (Mathematics) said he was opposed to increasing the
percentage beyond ten or removing that. There has been a lot of discussion
about this being a top twenty university. He does not feel that at
Princeton, Harvard, or any other top twenty university there are going to
be a large percentage of lecturers. It is very unfair to the students who
are paying tuition to not have the advantage of having instructors with
absolutely top level of education. It is an invitation to the
administration to cut costs of education.

The question was called and seconded. The motion to end discussion passed
in a show of hands 36 for, 13 against.

The amendment to the amendment passed in a show of hands 28 for, 23 against.

The Chair said that the amendment now said the number of lecturers in a
department must be based on the written approval of the tenured faculty of
that department.

Loys Mather (Agriculture) asked Professor Durant if he intended that there
must be a certain proportion of the faculty that must approve this?
Professor Durant said that would be a majority.

Tom Blues said that there might be some misconception here. This whole
proposal applies to full-time employees not part-time. Full-time employees
who are at present denied benefits. So they are full-time employees,
nonfaculty instructors who are denied benefits. The point of the proposal
is to provide benefits to people who are already here. The amendment is
designed as a type of precautionary note, saying they certainly do not want
the teaching burden to be born by non faculty but at the same time they
want to allow some possibility for full-time lecturers for some of the
teaching in various programs.

Chancellor Zinser said that she was uncomfortable with the statement in the
amendment because it refers to approval rather than recommendation. It
basically confuses the picture in terms of the role of the department head
and the dean. She would like to speak against having the amendment at all.
She does not believe that this basic proposal has anything to do with
anything but giving benefits to people who are currently being employed on
a full-time basis as lecturers. They are confusing the picture to assume
that somehow giving people benefits is going to cause a great growth in the
number of individuals who the administration or faculty would choose to
hire in those positions. She is more concerned with benefits being
provided to people who are serving as lecturers.

The amended amendment passed in a show of hands; 25 for, 15 against, and 2
abstentions.

Dave Durant said he hoped his amendment has not so messed up the
conversation that they will miss the point that they are trying to give
benefits to people who are now working full-time and not receiving benefits
and not have the security of more than one year.

Mike Cibull asked how many people they were talking about? The Chair said
that they did their best to get a full analysis across the university and
the have a figure of 40-50 university-wide who would be potentially
available for these positions.=20

Dan Reedy said he joined his distinguished colleague from the English
department in supporting this proposal. He supports the approval as
amended. These are not persons who are somehow second class in terms of
their intellectual capacity, in terms of their professionalism, they are
not. They have gone through searches as they would for faculty members and
have some lecturers whose records are as distinguished as many tenured
faculty members. They are not second class in any way except the benefits
and the just desserts they should have as professional colleagues within
the university. He is concerned about numbers, it is important that this
not be used as a subterfuge, but he is aware that both Princeton and
Harvard use lecturers on a regular basis and most certainly Oxford
University does. It is an issue of good faith with employees who are
giving their professional all and they should treat them with the same kind
of response with which they would want to be treated.

Craig Infanger (Agriculture) asked the Chancellor that did the fact that
they amended the proposal in any way endanger the administration's support
of the main motion? Chancellor Zinser said that she could not speak for
the whole administration only for herself. She remains concerned even
thought that statement is not referring to an action on an individual, it
is referring to the notion of increase. She is concerned that the
department head and dean will not play the role she would expect and want
them to play in the process. Because it does not have to do with action
having to do with an individual being chosen or not being chosen as a
lecturer, no it does not endanger her support because she believes very
much in the proposal.

Chairperson Applegate said that one of the things to remember was that when
something like this is passed in terms of a change in ARs it goes to the
Administration for review and discussion.

Joan Callahan (Arts and Sciences) asked if there were any AAUP rules on
these kinds of positions where they hire someone one year in time for
multiple years? She thought that the AAUP said that after a while those
people had to be tenured.

Richard Greissman (Arts and Sciences) said that the AAUP chapter at New
Mexico State University supported just this proposal. The issue is that if
you bring someone in with the chance of tenure and then do not offer the
possibility of review but extend their contract past that six years you are
in big trouble. But if you hired someone with the exclusive expectation
that it is not tenurable it is very different type of thing. They have to
be explicit about whether or not it is tenurable. Where there are no
promises and explicit statements prohibiting tenure you are following AAUP
guidelines. What they are trying to do here is bring more dignity to the
position than heretofore has been given. His experience is watching
lecturers for about four years in English and French. Every year that
these folks have assumed a lecturer position, at the end of the year before
renewal they go through the same evaluation as any faculty goes through.
It would be a disservice and as well as an insult to suggest that they are
not scrutinized as least as carefully as any other faculty member. In Arts
and Sciences they must go through a tenured review. The merit review at
the end of the year is a review that determines their merit increase, they
submit a teaching portfolio.=20

The amended proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 10: Criteria for Privilege and Tenure.

The proposal was tabled until the next Senate Meeting with a vote of 25 for
and 21 against.

See Attached
=20
ACTION ITEM 11: Proposed change to University Senate Rules.

Proposal:
Duplicate grades for courses in which a grade of B or better was
originally earned will not be used to raise the student's GPA unless an
official repeat option is exercised.

Rationale:
Duplicating a course, in which a grade of B or better has already been
received, is against the prevailing academic philosophy that a GPA should
be a true indication of one's academic ability. For example, as it stands
a student who has received a grade of A in a certain course can retake that
course indefinitely and increase his or her GPA. Passage of this proposal
would close such a loophole.

The proposal is recommended by the Admissions and Academic Standards and
the Senate Council.=20

Implementation Date: Fall Semester, 1998

The proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.




Donald Witt
Secretary, University Senate


=20