MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, SEPTEMBER 8, 1997

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., September 8,
1997 in Room 115 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Professor Jim Applegate, Chairperson on the Senate Council presided.

Members absent were: Debra Aaron, Laila Akhlaghi, M. Mukhtar Ali*, Dougl=
as
Boyd, Geza Bruckner, Joseph Burch, Mary Burke*, Johnny Cailleteau, Ben
Carr, Edward Carter, Philip DeSimone, Robert Farquhar, Donald Frazier,
Richard Furst, Philip Greasley, Ottfried Hahn, David Hamilton*, James
Holsinger, Jamshed Kanga, Craig Koontz, Thomas Lester, Oran Little, David
Mohney, Wolfgang Natter, Anthony Newberry, Rhoda-Gale Pollack*, Todd
P=92Pool, Thomas Robinson, Elizabeth Rompf*, David Shipley, Gregory Smith=
,
Edward Soltis, David Stockham, Louis Swift, Kaveh Tagavi, Michael Tomblyn=
,
George Wagner, William Wagner, Jesse Weil, Emery Wilson*, William Witt, a=
nd
Elisabeth Zinser.

* Absence Explained

Chairperson Jim Applegate called the meeting to order and welcomed everyo=
ne
to what was going to be a busy year.

The Chair stated that as he noted in the general invitation sent to facul=
ty
and students it is a tradition to have President Wethington give the Stat=
e
of the Campus Address. What is not a tradition is the year we in higher
education have experienced, so he is sure it will be an interesting
presentation. He assumed office on May 15, 1997 as the recent special
session convened. That experience at times brought to mind those old
admonitions to avoid watching sausage and law being made. At other times
it reminded him of what is a Middle Eastern saying that (with apologies) =
he
quotes from Dean Doug Boyd whose research takes him to that part of the
world; the camels may bray and the dogs may bark but the caravan must kee=
p
rolling along. However, at other times in the session and as the Senate
meets here today he senses a commitment and energy focused on higher
education that was and is truly exciting. He has heard the President on
several occasions speak to our future in these terms and knows he plans t=
o
share with them a vision of how this caravan is indeed rolling along with=
a
renewed sense of optimism and energy at this watershed moment in the
history of higher education in Kentucky. He welcomed President Wethingto=
n
and stated that the Senate looked forward to his State of the Campus Addr=
ess.

Dr. Wethington was given a round of applause. The President=92s remarks =
follow:

UNIVERSITY SENATE PRESENTATION
September 8, 1997

Introduction

Ladies and Gentlemen of the University Senate. Thank you for the
opportunity to meet with you for a brief period as we begin the 1997-98
academic year. It's especially nice this year to have the students and
faculty back in full swing, with another promising year underway at the
University.


In the next few minutes, I will offer some brief thoughts on the followin=
g:
(1) a brief report (a quick look) on developments within the University
since I spoke this time last year; (2) some comments on the state reform
effort that occupied our time and attention last year,- and (3) a report =
on
plans and initiatives that are underway and in the works for the immediat=
e
future.
Looking Back at 1996-97
We continued to make progress toward achieving our goal of having in
Lexington a University of undeniable excellence and quality. There were s=
o
many positive developments in the student body, on the faculty, in the
staff, and on the campus of the University, during the past year that it =
is
almost impossible to select developments that stand out. I offer the
following as a mere representative sample:

This past year, we began an initiative that we call the inclusive learnin=
g
community. At a time when other parts of the country are struggling with
such initiatives, we have chosen to rededicate our efforts to have an
inclusive learning community, one that can reflect upon, appreciate, and
celebrate the diversity of our students, faculty, staff, and the people w=
e
serve across our state and nation. We have made great progress toward
equitable treatment of all members of the University community. Our
"inclusive learning community" is designed to provide us a reminder of th=
e
need to move forward on this front.
B. We selected this past year the first group of students for the Robinso=
n
Scholars Program. This Program is funded with monies from the E.O. Robins=
on
Trust (monies produced principally by mining operations in the Robinson
forest). Under this Trust, UK is obligated to use trust funds to improve
the lives of people of the mountains of Eastern Kentucky. We have selecte=
d
162 promising young eighth grade students from 29 counties in the eastern
part of our state and are committed to providing financial support for
their education at the University of Kentucky in Lexington or in one of t=
he
UK community colleges. We will select additional students for this progr=
am
in the years ahead and believe that it is perhaps the best way to achieve
our objective of improving the lives of the people of this region.
C. We continue to build a very strong student body in our University. We
ranked in the top 10 public institutions in the country for the number of
freshman national merit scholars enrolled in the fall semester, our fourt=
h
consecutive year in the top 10. The College of Medicine enrolled its best
ever classes over the last couple of years and the College of Law continu=
es
to attract a very strong student body, well above those of the other law
schools of the state.
D. We made progress again on the research front. Our faculty and staff
attracted $125 million in new contracts, grants, and gifts, although
federal support for research became even more competitive during the
period. Over the most recent three year period, we have improved our
standing from 72 to 66 among all research universities in the country and
are now ranked 45th among all public universities. We are in a very good
position to take advantage of any increase in state funding for this part
of our mission.
E. We had another banner year in development, as our base of private
support continues to grow. We received in excess of $41 million in
donations during our most recent fund year. Among these donations was a $=
1
million gift from Ervin J. Nutter (a long time University supporter) to
establish four professorships in the College of Engineering and a gift fr=
om
the Lucille P. Markey Charitable Trust to establish a chair in the Colleg=
e
of Medicine in oncology research.
F. We had important developments this past year in facilities for the
university:
1. We are in the final stages of construction of the new William T. Young
Library. We will complete the project this fall and dedicate the building
before the end of the spring semester. We will move in between semesters
and open for library business at the beginning of the spring semester,
1998. We have sought and will have on our campus a world-class state of t=
he
art library, one that will be the envy of institutions across the country
and one that will serve us well as we undertake to become a top 20 resear=
ch
University.
2. We began construction during the year on the first phase of the new
Aging/Allied Health Facility on the Southeast side of the UK Campus (on t=
he
Rose-Limestone Street side of the Medical Center Complex). We completed a=
nd
opened a new parking facility between Limestone and Upper (at the north e=
nd
of the campus) and in so doing added 1000 new parking spaces to our suppl=
y.
We will never have all the parking capability we would have in an ideal
world. But we are clearly in better shape in this regard than we have in
been in quite a long time. We are particularly pleased with the new
facility's appearance, a factor of critical importance because of its
location on the campus. I should add that we have made a special effort
recently to add to the beauty of our campus and I believe we have made
progress in that regard.
3. During the past year, we concluded a sale of part of the South Farm on
Nicholasville Road. These funds are dedicated to fund the construction of=
a
new plant science research and instruction building for the College of
Agriculture and we hope to get that project approved during the upcoming =
year.
G. Other notable achievements of the past year are perhaps, too numerous =
to
mention--e.g., our selection as one of 18 research universities to
participate in a sponsored program to emphasize teaching training for new
faculty, our new Ph.D. programs in social work (with the University of
Louisville) and gerontology, our engineering college initiatives to meet
the needs of Kentucky industries (especially in the western part of the
state), and the great service activities of our extension programs in the
College of Agriculture and the Center for Robotics and Manufacturing Syst=
ems.

Time does not permit me to do justice to all in describing the achievemen=
ts
of the past year. I conclude by simply extending thanks to you and to you=
r
faculty colleagues for our continuing recent success as a quality institu=
tion.

State Reform of Higher Education

Introduction: In this spring of this year, I spoke to you about the
state's pending reform initiatives for higher education in Kentucky and
expressed to you some of the concerns I had about those developments. The
first phase of these initiatives ended in late spring with enactment of
legislation that will affect the University of Kentucky in substantial,
though yet uncertain, ways. I have strived during these efforts to protec=
t
the interests of the University of Kentucky and the citizens of our state
and have worked with state officials in an effort to find ways to improve
the state's higher education system. I can tell you that I am more
satisfied with the final product that I was with the proposed product. In
any event, I want to give you a brief summary of these developments.

Goals: The legislation fixes the following goals for higher education by
year 2020: (1) a seamless, integrated system of postsecondary education,
(2) a system that is strategically planned and adequately funded, (3) a
comprehensive research institution at UK ranked in the top 20 public
universities, (4) a premier and nationally recognized metropolitan
university at UL, (5) regional universities with at least one nationally
recognized program of distinction and one nationally recognized applied
research program, (6) a comprehensive community and technical college
system assuring access to a two-year transfer program and workforce
training, and (7) a coordinated system that delivers educational services
of quantity and quality comparable to the national average. I am
particularly pleased that the state is now firmly and publicly committed =
to
enhancing the research mission of this University. I am also pleased that
it is publicly committed to a system of higher education that is adequate=
ly
funded, an objective which we have been pursuing for at least two decades.
To be sure, these are promises for the future (which we have had in the
past). But Kentucky's elected leaders are to be commended for public
commitment to these crucial objectives.

Community Colleges: The community college initiatives of this reform
attracted the greatest attention. While substantial parts of the reform a=
re
scheduled for implementation in the future (including the initiative to
make UK a top 20 research institution), the crucial parts of the communit=
y
college reform effort were immediate and real. It is easier to describe
what has happened in this regard than it is to foresee how the reform mig=
ht
actually work in practice. It will take effect no later than July 1, 1998
and consists of the following:

A. The community college component of higher education and the state
technical training programs will merge into a single system called the
Kentucky Community and Technical College System, with management
responsibilities delegated from the UK Board of Trustees to a new Board o=
f
Regents for this System. The University of Kentucky will continue to own
the community colleges.
B. This new Board will consist of eight members appointed by the Governor
(four of the eight to be selected from a list of twelve nominated by the =
UK
Board of Trustees) as well as two members of the teaching faculty, two
members of the nonteaching faculty, and two members of the student body.
The President of this merged system will be selected by the new Board fro=
m
a list of three nominees submitted by a search committee established by t=
he
UK Board of Trustees.
C. Students enrolled in this System will be UK students and shall have al=
l
of the responsibilities, privileges and rights currently held by students
of the UK Community College System. Degrees in UK approved degree program=
s
will be awarded to students in this System by the Board of Trustees of th=
e
University of Kentucky. Requests for new degree programs to be offered in
UK's name will be submitted to the UK Board for its review and approval
(after review and approval by the new Board of this System).
D. Among other things, the new legislation provides that UK will continue
to own the property, facilities, and equipment of the community colleges,
that acquisition and disposition of property and capital construction for
use in the UK Community College System will be submitted to the UK Board
for final approval, and that existing employees of the Community College
System will be UK employees subject to the UK Governing and Administrativ=
e
Regulations managed by the Kentucky Community and Technical College Syste=
m.

It is difficult to imagine precisely how this new approach will function
once it is in effect. UK continues to have community college programs,
community college students, and community college personnel. The state's
leaders wanted to change the management structure for these programs and =
we
will do our best to carry out UK's new role to the very best of our
capabilities. The community colleges continue to be a vital part of the
state's educational efforts and they continue to be vitally important to
the University of Kentucky. We have in the past enrolled more students fr=
om
these colleges than any other institution in Kentucky and this will
undoubtedly continue into the foreseeable future. The quality of our
student body will be affected to a significant degree by the quality of t=
he
programs in these colleges. Thus, we must keep and enhance our
relationships with these colleges. We must maintain our close ties to the=
se
institutions and their communities, and we will.

Other Reforms: The legislation created a new entity called the Strategic
Committee on Postsecondary Education (SCOPE). It is a committee consistin=
g
primarily of the elected leadership of the Commonwealth, including the
Governor. The legislation also reorganizes and changes what used to be
called the Council on Higher Education and what will be known in the futu=
re
as the Council on Postsecondary Education. It will be headed by a
President, who will be the chief advocate and chief spokesperson for high=
er
education in Kentucky. The first President will be selected and employed =
by
the Strategic Committee on Postsecondary Education. The legislation
establishes what is called Strategic Investment and Incentive Funding
Programs (six funds), which will play a major role in the distribution of
increased funding for higher education in the state. It's too early to kn=
ow
precisely how these reforms will work. We know there will be change. We a=
re
not yet sure what form the change will take. We are preparing for it
nonetheless. We will play by the new rules.
Plans and Initiatives

Research Priorities: The state's reform effort has moved UK's research
mission to the forefront as a state priority for higher education. We are
delighted to accept that challenge and have taken some early steps to put
the University in position to move ahead rapidly once adequate funding is
provided. In April of this year, I appointed a Task Force on Research and
Graduate Education to make recommendations on strategic priority areas fo=
r
investment in graduate education and research. It is chaired by Dr. Dan
Reedy, former dean of the Graduate School, and is staffed with outstandin=
g
research faculty across the University. I have charged this Task Force to
do the following:
(1) To identify those areas of endeavor in graduate education and researc=
h
in which the University is capable of achieving national or international
distinction.
(2) To identify areas, based on our research strengths and program
initiatives, that should be targeted for special consideration.
(3) To recommend priorities for the investment of new funding in the area=
s
described above in order to maximize the most effective utilization of
increased state support for this part of our mission.

I have asked the Task Force to complete its work and report to me no late=
r
than the end of this semester. The Task Force has done much work already
and I look forward to receipt of its report and recommendations in the ne=
ar
future. During the Fall of this year, the University will revise its
Strategic Plan to guide the institution over the next five years and the
recommendations of this Task Force are crucial to that effort.

The state has committed itself to assist UK to become a more nationally
competitive research university. It is crystal clear that this assistance
will not take the form of huge sums of money tossed into the "research
barrel." We will need a cohesive plan that holds real promise for achievi=
ng
and sustaining distinction among the nation's top research and graduate
education programs. We have no chance of achieving our objective of being=
a
top 20 research institution without making hard choices as to where we ca=
n
succeed. We will do that during this year and incorporate those choices
into our Strategic Plan for the whole university.

Private Support: Although its exact form is yet unclear, it appears that
the state's reform efforts will encourage the state's public institutions
to raise private dollars to match new state support activities (e.g.,
matching money for chairs, professorships, scholarships, etc.). We are in
great shape to take advantage of these initiatives as they unfold and
needless to say will jump at the first opportunity to do so. With this in
mind, we have created a Fund for Academic Excellence and have already
received the first gift of $1.1 million and will determine during 1997-98
the feasibility of a major capital campaign. We can and will meet any
challenge presented to us to provide matching private funds needed to
obtain state resources for use in this institution.

Public Support: When I appeared before the Senate last spring, I indicat=
ed
concern about erosion of support across the state for the University of
Kentucky, erosion caused not by loss of interest in our work by the peopl=
e
of Kentucky but by a partial dismantling of what we have built over almos=
t
half a century. I have not lost my concern for the consequences of doing
that. I know for sure that we will not achieve and sustain greatness in
this University over the long run without strong support of the people wh=
o
live in the cities, towns, and rural areas of our state. Interest and
support for higher education will ebb and flow among political leaders an=
d
institutions but not the deep and enduring interest and support of the
people of Kentucky.

We must never underestimate the critical need for public support of this
University. I believe that we must redouble our efforts to inform the
people of Kentucky of the needs of this institution and of the need to ha=
ve
their support in our efforts to serve the educational needs of the state
from end to end. I believe that we must renew our efforts to build broade=
r
support for the University across the Commonwealth.

Institutional Independence: In concluding my remarks, as I voice concern=
s
that are on my mind, I should mention that we have been fortunate in rece=
nt
decades to have a healthy separation of higher, education and political
interests. In some instances across the country, there is evidence of an
unmistakable shift toward reducing centralized control over decision
making. There is a push for decentralized systems that are less
bureaucratic and less political, that avoid multiple layers of decision
making in favor of greater efficiency and academic effectiveness. In
others, the flow seems to run in the opposite direction--against
deregulation and in favor of the heavy hand of central control. Only time
will tell where reform efforts take us in this regard in Kentucky.

In a recent AGB (i.e., the Association of Governing Boards of Universitie=
s
and Colleges) policy paper, the author said that there is "surprising
unhappiness among elected political leaders with the performance of publi=
c
institutions . . ." He identified as unfortunate fallout from this
unhappiness line-item budgeting, performance based requirements on
appropriation legislation, loss of governing board independence, and
inability to persuade our most capable citizens to accept membership on
politicized governing boards. I don't have to tell you that such loss of
independence causes institutions to lose their capability to maintain
neutrality on social and moral issues, to find it harder to address deepl=
y
entrenched problems of underrepresentation of minorities in the student
bodies, faculties, and administrations, and to act more like political th=
an
academic institutions.

As we head in a new direction in higher education in this state, we shoul=
d
remind ourselves of the differences between political and educational
institutions. We should strive for sufficient breathing room between the
two to assure that all important educational decisions and policies are
rendered by educators and governing boards willing to advocate for high
quality, properly funded, independent public higher education.
Conclusion

Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly to the Senate as we
open a new school year. I believe we are continuing to do well as an
institution and that we have greater opportunity ahead of us than we have
had in the past. All we have to do is take full advantage of it and I am
confident we will do that and more.

I can state without question that the University of Kentucky continues to
move forward in making progress toward meeting important goals in our
mission of teaching, research and public service. And this is essential.

This institution is absolutely critical to the growth and success of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky. It is critical to the future of the young peopl=
e
who will soon be tomorrow's leaders in their communities. It is critical =
to
the economic development of the state as we help existing businesses grow
and prosper and help bring new business to the state. It is critical to t=
he
well being of literally every citizen of Kentucky as we move to weave
new-found knowledge into the daily fabric of people's lives -- through
county extension, through applied research, through assistance to Kentuck=
y
manufacturers, just to mention a few.

As we move ever nearer to the 21st Century, this institution will become
even more important to the State of Kentucky and her people than it has
been in the past. Next to state government, it will continue to be the
single most important entity in making a positive impact in the lives of
Kentuckians.

As President of the University of Kentucky, I understand and accept the
opportunities and challenges that lie before us and willingly share with
you the responsibility for assuring the success of this university.

Thank you.

President Wethington was given a round of applause.

Chairperson Applegate stated he was the Chair of the Senate Council and t=
he
Chair of Department of Communication. His staff in both places have his
numbers and can locate him if he is needed. Please feel free to call or
e-mail if there are questions or concerns they would like the Senate to
address.

The Chair made the following introductions: Dr. Roy Moore the Chair-elec=
t
of the Senate Council, Gifford Blyton, the parliamentarian, Cindy Todd,
who makes the Senate Council really work, Susan Caldwell, the recording
secretary, Patrick Herring, the acting Registrar, and the continuing
Sergeant at Arms, Michelle Sohner, and a new Sergeant at Arms, Lana
Dearinger. =20

The Chair made the following announcements:

Terry Birdwhistell is going to be a new member of the Senate Council,
filling in for Virginia Davis-Nordin who is on leave this year.

As far as the legislative session was concerned, he acknowledged Loys
Mather=92s work as the head of Coalition of Senate Faculty Leaders as wel=
l as
being a faculty trustee. Loys led the charge in Frankfort. I was there,
Jan Schach, Dan Reedy, and Lee Meyer of the Senate Council were there, as
well as faculty from various institutions in the state that were a part o=
f
COSFL. They worked diligently to act on many of the resolutions that you
as a Senate and our Senate Council passed prior to the special session. =
We
were successful. Many of you received the summary of the legislative
session that Loys and I co-authored with the synopsis reform act provided
by the Legislative Search Commission. That synopsis went to all faculty
and the student senators.

In the spring the Senate passed a resolution supporting voting faculty an=
d
student representation on the Council on Postsecondary Education, a very
important and powerful new body. The COSFL group succeeded at securing
that representation.

As you probably also know, the faculty representative was chosen from tho=
se
nominated by the faculty trustees from institutions around the state.
Those nominations were made and the Governor picked our own Merl Hackbart
to be the faculty voting representative on the CPE. The student
representative is from the University of Louisville, an excellent person
nominated by Melanie Cruz, our Student Government President.

We worked with some other issues related to the bill. Amendments to
increase our participation in the new virtual university; preserve the
state-wide service and research mission of UK; and preserve faculty
prerogatives in the design of curriculum and degree programs

There was some unfinished business that we will attend to as we move towa=
rd
the regular session in January. First, there is still a provision in the
bill for what is called =93statewide degree programs=94, that allows the =
CPE to
dictate degree requirements in a way that usurps the faculty role in that
area. We will work to modify that in the regular session.

Second, as many of you know, post-tenure review is an issue raised in the
session. While we were successful in making it not a part of the
Governor=92s Bill, there has been a subsequent post-tenure review bill fi=
led
for the regular session. We will be working with that issue in the comin=
g
semester. In November the American Association of University Professors =
is
putting together a seminar that we will cosponsor which will bring togeth=
er
outside experts and some on campus people to talk about how post-tenure
review is being addressed nationally and locally.

In the Spring many of you received a report from our own Senate Task Forc=
e
on Promotion and Tenure, chaired by Mike Nietzel and Mary Witt. The Sena=
te
Council met in a retreat on August 20, 1997 at the Carnahan House and
reviewed that report in some detail. We will meet this month with Mary a=
nd
Mike to go over the report. You will be seeing parts of that report
emerging as part of the Senate agenda over the year as we attempt to
address issues related our promotion and tenure system.

There was also a task force on the Special Title Faculty Series and they
are addressing a number of issues related to the many special title facul=
ty
series. They have promised a report by October.

In October we will be dealing with the plus/minus grading issue (and
hopefully resolving it.) You have some guidelines that the Senate Counci=
l
has approved and I hope you will be willing to follow to insure a fair an=
d
effective discussion that brings some resolution to this long standing
issue on campus. We want to fulfill a promise we made last spring when w=
e
voted that we did want one undergraduate grading system across this
University.

The President mentioned the Graduate Education Task Force. I am serving
as your Senate Council Chair on both the Graduate Education Task Force an=
d
the Strategic Planning Committee. I hope to use that vehicle to facilita=
te
Senate involvement in this process. Certainly feel free to talk with me =
as
you have concerns or issues for these committees.

In the next couple of weeks we will be posting on the UK Home Page the
University Senate Web Page. We have a very capable student taking this o=
n
as an independent study, who is looking at how these things are designed
and how to assess usefulness. We hope that this will be a vehicle that
will facilitate distribution of information as well as discussion about
issues that are of concern: like promotion and tenure, the status of
special title faculty, and plus/minus grading. On this web site, when it
is up and running you will be able to find all the Senate Committees, the=
ir
charges and their chairs. All the chairs that I have heard from have
agreed to put their e-mail addresses there. There will be committee
reports and a =93What=92s New=94 section. There will be a =93higher educ=
ation
issues=94 section that hot links into some of the more interesting on-goi=
ng
discussions and information sites for what is happening with all various
issues in higher ed because we are certainly not alone here in many of th=
e
issues that we are addressing. The page is =93under construction=94 and =
will
be available shortly. When it is =93up=94 we will get you the address. =
Please
try it out, and see what you like, and give us feedback.

I do appreciate your willingness to serve on the committees and especiall=
y
to those of you who agreed to chair Senate Committees, I extend my deep
appreciation.

The Chair stated that the minutes had been distributed for March 10, Apri=
l
7, April 14, and April 28, 1997. There were no corrections to the minute=
s
and they were approved as circulated.

The Chair said that he hoped he could do as good a job this year as Jan
Schach did last year as Senate Chair. It was really a historic year with
the Governor addressing the Senate. He stated that it was also a traditi=
on
at the first Senate meeting for the Chair-elect to give thanks and tribut=
e
to the good work of the past chair. He recognized Professor Roy Moore,
chair-elect of the Senate Council to give the resolution.

SPECIAL RESOLUTION
JANICE SCHACH

Each fall at the first meeting of the University Senate we recognize the
leadership and work of the outgoing Chair of the Senate Council. It is my
pleasure as Chair-Elect to offer this resolution on behalf of both the
Senate Council and the entire Senate to thank Professor Janice Schach, wh=
om
I believe everyone would agree has done a remarkable and outstanding job
this past year.

This has been a year of controversy and major change for institutions of
higher education, including the University of Kentucky. Jan Schach played=
a
key role -- if not the key role -- in involving faculty and students in t=
he
discussion and decision-making process.

The members of the Senate Council and anyone else who knows Jan well can
attest that her foremost objective in her role as Chair was to strengthen
the voice of the faculty in the decision-making process at this universit=
y
and to bring students into the fold so their views could be heard as well.

This has been a difficult year for us all. Yet, now that all is said and
done, we have an unparalleled opportunity to, for the first time, become =
a
top 20 university. Jan, assisted by Loys Mather and Jim Applegate, spent
many hours lobbying the legislature and the governor to ensure that the
university's views were heard and considered. One of the results of those
efforts was student and faculty representation on the new Council on
Postsecondary Education.

Prior to the special legislative session, Jan did an absolutely superb jo=
b
of engaging the University Senate in the ongoing debate over the future o=
f
higher education in Kentucky. In an historic event, the governor of the
Commonwealth, the Honorable Paul Patton, addressed the UK Senate. Profess=
or
Schach also arranged for President Charles Wethington to speak to the
Senate about this issue. Thus, the University Senate became a major forum
for discussion about higher education reform.

These events somewhat overshadowed some of the other accomplishments of
Professor Schach's year as Chair. I will take only a moment to highlight =
a
few of her many other achievements. She worked closely with Lexington
Campus Chancellor Dr. Elisabeth Zinser on the Inclusive Learning Communit=
y
and remains a member of that group. She worked with Dr. Lauretta Byars an=
d
Dr. Nancy Ray in developing a racial harassment policy. She traveled with
Chancellor Zinser to the Pew Roundtable in St. Louis and with campus dean=
s
to the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School to talk about research a=
nd
graduate education. She attended a conference on shared governance at the
University of Michigan. Professor Schach played a major role in resolving
the controversy in the Medical School over the Kentucky Providers Creed a=
s
well as the controversy over the structure of the Dental School

One accomplishment of which she is particularly proud was her work with t=
he
SGA in establishing a task force that wrote a creed setting out the value=
s
represented by this university. That creed now appears on the back of a
card provided to all students. It has been endorsed by the SGA, the
Lexington Campus Group, the Medical School Group and the Senate.

Professor Schach established other Task Forces -- on Teaching Evaluations=
,
on Promotion and Tenure and on Tenure of the Senate Chair. (The latter's
proposal will be presented later in this meeting.) These Task Forces didn=
't
simply meet. They got things done, and we have already seen some of the
fruits of their efforts. We'll be seeing more in the future.

Professor Schach, you have gotten all of us -- faculty, students and
administrators -- involved this year and we salute you for your outstandi=
ng
leadership, vision and extraordinary accomplishments. You have been an
inspiring role model.

Please accept our sincere gratitude for all that you have done.

Mr. Chair, I request that this resolution be presented to Professor Schac=
h
as a gesture of our appreciation for her leadership and dedication to thi=
s
University and that a copy be spread upon the minutes of the University
Senate.

Professor Schach was given a round of applause.

Chairperson Applegate said that thankfully Jan continued to serve on the
Senate Council and he was happy she was there for her advice and counsel =
as
they pursue another interesting year.

The Chair said that we are focused today on collaboration between faculty
and students. He said he constantly reminds people on the outside that U=
K
does not have a =93faculty=94 senate but a =93University Senate=94 which =
includes
both students and faculty and administration and that we are the richer f=
or
it. No one is on the front line in terms of trying to manage and make su=
re
they live up to their ideals as faculty and as students with one another =
as
a community than the Academic Ombud. It is also a tradition that at the
first Senate meeting that the Academic Ombud presents a report to the
Senate. It is certainly a report from the front lines so to speak and is
always extremely interesting. It is something that they as faculty and
students should enjoy hearing. They are also very fortunate to have Lee
Edgerton as the academic ombud, he is doing a marvelous job.

Professor Edgerton made the following remarks:

Annual Report of the Academic Ombud
1996-97
Lee A. Edgerton


Thank you for the opportunity to address the senate at the beginning of m=
y
third year as Academic Ombud.

The basic statistics of activities of the office for the year follow this
text. They are, in my opinion, quite similar to the patterns of past year=
s
and so I will make my commentary brief Michelle Sohner, the administrativ=
e
assistant in the office logged 1,489 contacts this year, just shy of the =
15
to 16 hundred contacts logged the previous four years. Of these, 269 were
classified as cases, that is they required action beyond the initial
consultation. This number barely exceeds the 266 cases from the 95-96
school year and continues a trend of marginal increases in cases over the
past five years. Although the office received several requests for suppor=
t
of student opposition to plus-minus grading, I think it is worth noting
that we had only a small number of cases involving plus-minus grading.
Indeed, complaints in the category of grades were the smallest, both
numerically and as a percentage of complaints, that we have experienced
during the past four years. Thus, to the extent that concerns over
plus-minus grading were an issue, the issue would seem to have been dealt
with largely by direct discussion not necessitating the use of the Ombud
office. I hope this predicts open discussion of our grading system this y=
ear.
Two other issues are not documented statistically but deserve mention. On=
e
point for faculty and administrators is that we have received several
complaints about rules violations by adjunct faculty. In a number of thes=
e
cases, the faculty were simply unaware of the rules. I=92m sure these fac=
ulty
will appreciate our efforts to integrate them into departmental and colle=
ge
mailing lists so that they receive appropriate notices and are not caught
off-guard with respect to what our rules say students may rightly expect =
of
them. In some cases they may benefit from a brief training session simila=
r
to those we provide new TAs.

The second point is directed largely to the student representatives. We h=
ad
one occasion this year in which a student preceded her discussion of a
negative issue in course A by sharing a very positive experience in cours=
e
B. Hearing her positive comments not only cheered me, but improved the da=
y
of the instructor for course B and the instructor=92s chair to whom I
forwarded the comments. I know that several student organizations from ti=
me
to time take actions to provide faculty with positive feedback. Because
faculty, like students, learn from a combination of both positive and
negative feedback, I want to applaud and commend these actions.

In closing, I offer some well deserved accolades to those who have helped
me. Thanks to my fellow runners for recharging my spirit. A sincere
thank-you goes to Michelle Sohner, the administrative assistant in the
office. Michelle lowers the level of anxiety for both students and facult=
y.
She assists in scouring the rule books and providing insightful
suggestions. I also must thank again those who were Ombuds before me. The=
y
maintain their commitment to the office, through helpful advice, and by
periodically stepping in to serve again as the Ombud. All of us within th=
e
University community are indebted for their extended service to the
institution. Finally, I want to thank both faculty and students for your
continuing support of the Ombud office. I appreciate that the issues we
discuss are often heartfelt and that by the time you approach, or are
approached by, the Ombud, you may feel that you have discussed the issue =
ad
nauseam. Thus, your civility, pleasant manners and occasional humor in
discussing issues one more time requires an extra effort. Thank you for
making that effort.


STATISTICAL REPORT
1996-1997

Number of Single Contacts
(Telephone Calls/Referrals) 1,489

Number of Cases Handled 269

NATURE OF COMPLAINTS

Academic Offenses 21
Attendance 15
Discrimination 5
Exams 9
Grades 92
Instruction 44
Personal Problems 3
Progress/Promotion 68
University Policy 12

Total 269
COLLEGE WHERE COMPLAINT ORIGINATED

Agriculture 8
Allied Health 5
Architecture 2
Arts and Sciences 139
Business and Economics 20
Communications 15
Dentistry 2
Education 21
Engineering 16
Fine Arts 8
Human Environmental Sciences 9
Law 4
Medicine 3
Nursing 4
Pharmacy 0
Social Work 8
Non-Applicable 5

Total 269


STUDENT=92S COLLEGE

Agriculture 12
Allied Health 8
Architecture 3
Arts and Sciences 137
Business and Economics 22
Communications 11
Dentistry 2
Education 19
Engineering 20
Fine Arts 7
Human Environmental Sciences 6
Law 3
Medicine 3
Nursing 4
Pharmacy 0
Social Work 7
Non-Applicable 5

Total 269

CLASSIFICATION OF THE STUDENT

Freshmen 26
Sophomores 40
Juniors 51
Seniors 90
Graduates 48
Non-Degree 7
Non-Applicable 7

Total 269
CASES BY MONTH

July, 1995 8
August, 1995 16
September, 1995 19
October, 1995 21
November, 1995 19
December, 1995 37
January, 1996 29
February, 1996 26
March, 1996 12
April 1996 30
May, 1996 35
June,1996 17

Total 269


FOUR YEAR COMPARISONS


Cases Handled Single Contacts

1996-97 269 1,489
1995-96 266 1,523
1994-95 261 1,601
1993-94 258 1,541
1992-93 239 1,589


MOST FREQUENT COMPLAINTS

1996-97 1995-96

Grades 92 Grades 111
Progress/Promotion 68 Progress/Promotion 58
Instruction 44 Instruction 31
Academic Offenses 21 Academic Offenses 22


1994-95 1993-94
Grades 99 Grades 97
Progress/Promotion.. 55 Progress/Promotion .. 61
Instruction 41 Instruction 30
Academic Offenses 24 Academic Offenses 29


Professor Edgerton was given a round of applause.

The Chair said that there were many important jobs in the university in
which they did not thank people enough and that the Ombud is certainly on=
e
of them.

ACTION ITEM I - Consideration of and action on proposed changes in
University Senate Rules, Section IV - 4.2.2.3 and Section V - 5.3.2.4,
Admission/Retention/Exit policies for Teacher Certification Programs,
College of Education

Proposals:
The following proposals for revising the Admission/Retention/Exit policie=
s
for Teacher Certification Programs were considered and approved by the
Senate's Admissions and Academic Standards Committee and the University
Senate Council and are submitted for University Senate consideration.

General Intent:

1. Align the format and language of appropriate sections of the Universit=
y
Senate Rules and UK Bulletin with NCATE accreditation standards, especial=
ly
in reference to continuous assessment and performance-based programming.

2. Add sections specifically for admission, retention, and exit which
correspond to assessment points specified by NCATE standards and KY EPSB
expectations.

3. Change basic skills testing requirements to match new standards adopte=
d
by the KY Education Professional Standards Board. (The EPSB has deleted t=
he
use of the CTBS, and added the GRE and Communications Skills/General
Knowledge portions of the NTE Core Battery. Also, at the request of the
people that administer the SAT, the EPSB has withdrawn the SAT for use as
basic skills assessment for admission to teacher education purposes.=
)

4. Insert language specifying that students must have portfolios at the
point of entrance, at the point of retention decisions, and at exit. Exit
portfolios and completed on-demand tasks in particular will be required b=
y
the KY Education Professional Standards Board at the point of exit from a
teacher education program. (On-demand tasks should begin phasing in Fall
=9197 for specified programs.)

5. Insert a section on the new undergraduate secondary education major
specifying the manner in which these majors must be admitted to advanced
standing and graduate from the program.

ADMISSION, RETENTION AND EXIT FROM TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS

(To be substituted for University Senate Rules, where applicable, and UK
Undergraduate Bulletin, College of Education, Admission to Teacher
Education section, 96-97 Bulletin, p. 105.)

A student must be admitted to, retained in, and successfully exit from a
state-approved teacher education program in order to receive a teaching
certificate. The components of an approved teacher preparation program
include: 1) an earned bachelor's degree from a regionally accredited
institution of higher education, 2) completion of approved teaching subje=
ct
matter field(s), and 3) completion of a teacher preparation program,
including student teaching.

The College of Education Certification Program Faculties, the Director of
Student Services and Certification, and the University Registrar are
charged with the responsibility to monitor a student's matriculation
through the teacher preparation program, and to recommend to the Kentucky
Education Professional Standards Board that a successful candidate be
awarded a state teaching license (certificate).

Continuous Assessment In Teacher Education Programs

A student's matriculation through all teacher preparation programs is
continuously monitored, assessed, and reviewed. In addition to typical
evaluation processes that occur as part of their course work and field
placements, students will be assessed a minimum of three times during the=
ir
program by representatives of their respective program faculty.

The three assessments will occur upon entry into the Teacher Education
Program, at a midpoint in the program (no later than the semester prior t=
o
student teaching), and as students exit the program following student
teaching. Assessments will include, but are not limited to: (a) basic
skills assessment, (b) review of grades via transcript, (c) personal and
professional skills assessed during interviews with program faculty, when
taking campus based courses, and during field experiences, (d) portfolio
documents, and (e) continued adherence to the KY Professional Code of Eth=
ics.

Following admission to a teacher education program, if problems have been
identified at any of assessment points, program faculty will determine a
plan for addressing the problems and implement the plan including feedbac=
k
and direction to the student. In addition, if specific strengths are
recognized during these assessments, the student will be commended.

Standards For Admission To A Teacher Education Program

1. Candidates for admission must have completed at least 60 semester hour=
s,
or, if pursuing initial certification as a post-bachelor's or graduate
student, must have earned a bachelor's degree from a regionally accredite=
d
institution of higher education.

2. Candidates for admission must demonstrate academic achievement by
earning minimum overall GPA of 2.50. In addition, post bachelor's and
graduate level students must demonstrate a minimum 2.50 GPA in the teachi=
ng
subject matter field(s).

3. Candidates for admission must certify their knowledge of the Kentucky
Professional Code of Ethics and must sign a declaration of eligibility fo=
r
certification.

4. Candidates for admission must demonstrate aptitude for teaching by
presenting three letters of recommendation from individuals who can attes=
t
to the candidate's potential success in teaching.

5. Candidates must present an Admissions Portfolio. Although the contents
of the portfolio will vary by program, it will include at least the
following: "best piece" sample(s) of writing in the subject matter
field(s); evidence of experience with students and/or community; and a
written autobiography or resume.

6. Candidates for admission must demonstrate an acceptable level of skill=
s
in written communication. This will be assessed through an on-demand
written task at the time of the interview. In lieu of an on-demand task,
program faculty may require that the candidate demonstrate having earned =
a
minimum grade of 'B' in a college-level written composition course.

7. Candidates for admission must demonstrate an acceptable level of skill=
s
in oral communication. This will be assessed by the program faculty at th=
e
time of the admissions interview. In lieu of assessing oral communication
skills at the time of the interview, the program faculty may require that
students have earned at least a 'B' in a college level public speaking co=
urse.

8. Candidates for admission must demonstrate basic skills with acceptable
standardized test scores. Allowable tests are the ACT, the ACTE, the GRE =
or
the PRAXIS II Communications Skills and General Knowledge tests. Acceptab=
le
scores on these tests are as follows: 1) ACT, 20 composite, 2) ACTE, 21
composite, 3) GRE, Verbal test score of 400, Quantitative test score of
400, Analytic test score of 400, and 4) PRAXIS 11 Communications Skills a=
nd
General Knowledge tests, state-specified cut-off scores. No standardized
test scores older than 8 years can be used to meet this requirement.

Retention of Candidates In Teacher Education Programs

The progress of candidates who have been admitted to a teacher education
program is continuously monitored. Some of the items which are monitored
are: (a) whether a student has failed to earn a grade of C or better in a
professional education class, (b) whether a student has failed to maintai=
n
2.50 minimum GPA's overall and in required subject areas, (c) whether a
student has demonstrated continued adherence to the EPSB Professional Cod=
e
of Ethics, and (d) whether adequate progress is being made in building th=
e
Working Portfolio.

If problems are identified, program faculty will determine a plan for
addressing the problems and implement the plan including feedback and
direction to the student.

Prior to the student teaching semester, each candidate will be asked to
provide evidence in the form of the Working Portfolio to demonstrate the
acquisition of skills related to teaching in the chosen subject field, an=
d
to document progress in any identified problem areas. Each candidate's
portfolio will be reviewed by the appropriate program faculty, and
continued progress through the program will be contingent on the results =
of
this midpoint review.

Admission to student teaching requires a successful midpoint assessment
review and recommendation by the program faculty that the candidate be
allowed to student teach.

Exit From Teacher Certification Programs

All candidates for matriculation from a teacher education program with a
recommendation to the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board tha=
t
a teaching license be issued, must continue to meet all standards for
admission and retention at the time of exit.

At exit all teacher certification candidates must present an Exit Portfol=
io
for review by the appropriate program faculty. The exit portfolio will be
organized by Kentucky New Teacher Standards and will include a mix of ite=
ms
selected by the candidate and required by the particular program faculty.
The program faculty must certify that a review of the Exit Portfolio has
demonstrated that for undergraduate students, the candidate has met all o=
f
the Kentucky New Teacher Standards as a prerequisite for granting the
bachelor's degree in education and the recommendation to the KY EPSB for =
a
granting of a state teaching certificate (license). For post-bachelor's a=
nd
graduate students pursuing initial teacher licensure, the successful Exit
Portfolio review is a condition for the granting of a degree at the
discretion of the Certification Program Faculty.

Prior to exit from the teacher certification program, candidates must hav=
e
successfully completed all On-demand Portfolio Tasks required by the
Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board.

Praxis Testing And The Kentucky Teacher Internship

Successful completion of the required PRAXIS examinations is a preconditi=
on
for the granting of a Kentucky Teaching License (Certificate). All
candidates must successfully complete the following examinations: 1) PRAX=
IS
Communications Skills, 2) PRAXIS General Knowledge, 3) PRAXIS Professiona=
l
Knowledge, and 4) the appropriate PRAXIS Series Subject
Assessments/Specialty Area Test(s) or the appropriate subject examination
administered by the KY EPSB.

Candidates must provide the College of Education, Office of Student
Services and Certification, with passing test scores on all required PRAX=
IS
examinations or EPSB-administered examinations as a prerequisite for bein=
g
recommended for a Kentucky Teaching License (Certificate).

Upon being recommended by the College of Education for a Kentucky Teachin=
g
License (Certificate), a candidate will be issued a Kentucky Letter of
Eligibility for the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program. Upon employment =
in
a Kentucky P-12 school, the candidate will receive a one year license to
practice as a fully qualified intern teacher. After successfully completi=
ng
the internship year, the candidate will be eligible for a regular Kentuck=
y
Professional Teaching License (Certificate).

Information concerning licensure in other states is available from the
College of Education Office of Student Services and Certification.

Admission And Graduation For Secondary Education Students Not Seeking
Admission To A Teacher Certification Program

1. All students pursuing a secondary education major without teacher
certification must be admitted to advanced standing.

2. To be admitted to advanced standing a student must have completed at
least 60 semester hours.

3. Student must demonstrate academic achievement by earning a minimum
overall GPA of 2.50 at the time of applying for advanced standing. At the
time of graduation, students must demonstrate not only a minimum overall
GPA of 2.50, but also a minimum GPA of 2.50 in the teaching subject matte=
r
field(s).

4. All requests for admission to advanced standing must be reviewed by
appropriate faculty advisors. Students not recommended for advanced
standing by an appropriate advisor are ineligible to continue or graduate
from College of Education programs.

Implementation Date: Spring Semester, 1998

Note: If approved, the proposed policies will be codified by the Rules
Committee

Chairperson Applegate introduced Professor Roy Moore for introduction of
the first action item. Professor Moore reviewed the item and recommended
approval on behalf of the Senate Council.

Professor Hans Gesund (Engineering) suggested that an editorial change be
made on page 4, that the word matriculation means enrollment in, not exit
from.

There was no further discussion and the item passed in unanimous voice vo=
te.

ACTION ITEM 2: Consideration of and action on proposed changes in
University Senate Rules, to enable the Senate Council Chair to serve a
second consecutive year.

Current Rule:

1.3.1.3 Officers The officers of the Senate Council shall consist of a
chair and a chair-elect. The chair shall hold office from May 16 through
May 15, preside at Council meetings, and be responsible for the operation
of the Senate Council office. The chair-elect shall be elected in April
from among the nine faculty members on the Council, and shall hold office
from May 16 through May 15. At that time the chair-elect will assume the
position of chair. The duties of the chair-elect shall be to present and
explain Council recommendations to the University Senate for action and t=
o
assume the duties of the chair in the absence of that officer. The
chair-elect shall also be responsible for seeing that the minutes of the
Council are accurately recorded and promptly distributed. If for any reas=
on
the office of the chair-elect should become vacant, the Council shall act
as soon as possible to elect a replacement. (US:10/12/81)

* A member of the Senate Council is not eligible while on sabbatical to
serve as chair-elect but a person who has replaced the member on sabbatic=
al
on the Council is eligible to be elected as chair-elect. (RC: 3/31/94)

Officers of the Senate Council will remain members of the Senate Council
for the duration of their terms of office even if their terms as Senators
may have expired. In this eventuality, they will not be counted as part o=
f
their academic units in the election of members to the Senate or to the
Senate Council, thereby expanding the normal size of both those bodies.
(US:10/12/81)

An Administrative Assistant, employed by and responsible to the Senate
Council, shall carry out the routine and continuing activities which are
essential to the functioning of the Council. (US:10/12/81)
Proposed Recommendations:
1. The Senate Council shall elect its chair in December preceding the
academic year during which the Chair shall serve. All nine of the elected
faculty members then serving on the Council shall be eligible for electio=
n
to the position. The incumbent chair, if in his or her first year as chai=
r,
shall also be eligible for reelection. When the person chosen is not the
incumbent chair, he or she shall be known as the chair-elect.

2. The Senate Council shall also elect a vice-chair at its December meeti=
ng
from among the six faculty members whose terms do not expire at the end o=
f
that month (see also #3 below). The vice-chair's duties are to preside at
any meeting of the Senate or the Senate Council at which the chair is not
present, and to introduce the Senate Council motions and resolutions at
Senate meetings. The vice chair shall become chair of the Senate Council
for the remainder of the chair's term if for any reason the chair is no
longer able to serve in that capacity.

3. The chair-elect or a chair reelected to a second term shall take offic=
e
as chair on the following June lst and serve through May 31st of the next
year. The vice chair shall have the same term.

4. An incumbent vice chair whose term as a member of the Senate Council
expires on December 31st shall continue in office and serve as a non-voti=
ng
member of the Council until the following May 31st. An incumbent vice cha=
ir
whose term on the Council expires on December 31st shall be eligible to b=
e
named chair-elect at the meeting that December to choose the next chair.

Background and Rationale:
The Task Force was charged in April, 1997, by then Senate Council Chair J=
an
Schach to consider the advisability of the Senate Council chair serving f=
or
a second consecutive year, and, if the Task Force found it advisable, to
recommend the best method for accomplishing this.

The Task Force thinks there are several advantages to a chair serving for
two years rather than for one. Perhaps most persuasive, we know from our
experience as former chairs that it takes several months to get used to t=
he
position -- to learn what the chair's powers and authority are and to gai=
n
experience in dealing with the president, the chancellors and other
administrators with whom the chair interacts regularly. By the time a
person gets a "feel" for being chair, his or her term is halfway over.
Service for a second year would reduce the "training period" to experienc=
e
ratio and enable the chair to interact more confidently with the faculty
and administration. Moreover, service for two years would enable a chair =
to
better pursue his or her initiatives. New proposals always take time to
develop and implement and are less likely to succeed if the initiator
cannot follow them up.

We see one disadvantage to a chair serving for two years: fewer faculty
will be able to serve in this capacity which will diminish the breadth of
faculty leadership slightly. It is also possible that a disinterested or
less competent person will be chair longer than desirable, but this can b=
e
prevented by requiring the chair to be reelected to a second term.

We believe the advantages of a second year's service outweigh the
disadvantage and we recommend that the chair of the University Second
Council be allowed to serve a second consecutive year. To accomplish this=
,
we recommend the following mechanisms be incorporated into Rule I - 3.1.3=
:

Rationale for the Proposed Mechanisms
We recommend changing the terms of the Council officers from a May 16 - M=
ay
15 period to a June 1 - May 31st period. As former council chairs, we fou=
nd
it difficult (as did Jan Schach) to wind up affairs by May 15th given all
the other events that occur at the semester's end. The additional 15 days
would give the chair more breathing space, and would not diminish the
ability of the chair-elect to prepare for the following year's activities.

We recommend moving the election from April until the following December.
The chair-elect will not yet be chair in April, so it is obviously too
early for the Council to decide whether a chair's performance warrants
another term. Likewise, a chair may decide after six months' service that
he or she doesn't want a second term. If the election is later than
December, the terms of three experienced faculty council members will hav=
e
expired, making them ineligible for election as chair. December is also
early enough for the chair-elect to negotiate a reduced teaching load for
the following year with his or her college.

Because there will be no chair-elect between June lst and the December
election and none for 18 months if the Chair is reelected, we recommend
creating the office of vice chair. This officer will do the things that t=
he
chair-elect in the present system now does. Because the chair-elect in th=
e
present system is part of the Council's leadership (Committee on
Committees, etc.), we anticipate that the new vice chair will continue in
this capacity. We therefore think that the vice chair should be eligible
for election to chair even if his or her term on the Council is expiring =
at
the end of the December in which the election occurs.

We surveyed our benchmark universities about the terms of their council
chairs. There is no set pattern; responses show a variety of term lengths
and eligibility for reelection. Two universities do not have equivalents =
to
our Senate Council. An appendix with these data is available upon request
of the Senate Council office.

Bradley C. Canon (Council Chair'85/'86)
Wilbur Frye (Council Chair'86P87)
Loys Mather (Council Chair'88/'89)

Implementation Date: December 1997

Note: If approved, the proposed policies will be codified by the Rules
Committee

The Chair said that last year Jan Schach appointed a task force made up o=
f
previous senate council chairs including Brad Canon as chair, Loys Mather=
,
and Wilbur Frye and the second agenda item was the outcome of that task
force. He then recognized Professor Moore for introduction of the item.
Professor Moore review the item and recommended approval on behalf of the
Senate Council.

There was no discussion and the item passed in a voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 3: Proposal to revise University Senate Rules, Section V -
3.1.1a. Repeat Option

Proposal: [Eliminate bracketed sentence at end of paragraph one]

5.3.1.1 Repeat Option (US: 11/14/83; US: 4/13/87; US: 11/14/88; US:
4/23/90; US: 9/20/93 US: 4/11/94)
A student shall have the option to repeat once as many as three differen=
t
courses which have been completed with only the grade, credit hours and
quality points for the second completion used in computing the student's
academic standing and credit for graduation. The limit of three repeat
options holds for a student's entire undergraduate career, no matter how
many degrees or programs are attempted. A student also may use the repeat
option when retaking a course on a Pass-Fail basis (provided the course
meets the requirements for being taken Pass-Fail), even though the course
was originally taken for a letter grade. [If a failing grade (F) is earne=
d
on the second attempt, the original grade will continue to be used in
calculating the grade point average and the second attempt shall constitu=
te
exhaustion of one of the student's three repeat options under this provis=
ion.]

A student exercising the repeat option must notify in writing the dean of
the college in which the student is enrolled. A student may exercise the
repeat option at any time prior to graduation. (US: 4/11/94)

If a student officially withdraws from the second attempt, then the grade=
,
credit hours and quality points for the first completion shall constitute
the grade in that course for official purposes. Permission to attempt aga=
in
the same course shall be granted by the instructor and the dean of the
college in which the student is enrolled (see Section IV - 4.3.3). (US:
4/11/94).

The repeat option may be exercised only the second time a student takes a
course for a letter grade, not a subsequent time. (US: 2/14/94)

* A student may exercise the repeat option by taking a special exam (as
provided in 5.2.1.2); if the request for the exam is approved, the studen=
t
may request that the grade in the course be recorded under the repeat
option. (RC: 1/27/84)

* There is no relationship between the academic bankruptcy rule (V -
5.3.1.7) and the repeat option. To the extent that a student has used any
or all of his/her repeat options in the first enrollment, he/she no longe=
r
has them available during a subsequent enrollment. If not previously used=
,
they are available during the subsequent enrollment. (RC: 9/29/82)

* Attendance at a community college is the equivalent of attendance at th=
e
Lexington campus for purposes of exercising the repeat option. (RC: 9/28/=
82)

* A student who audits a course in one semester and then takes the course
for credit in a subsequent semester is to be regarded as having taken the
course only once - the subsequent semester. (RC: 1/20/94)

* Under the revisions of the repeat option rules adopted by the Universit=
y
Senate in April 1994, the event is the filing of the repeat option. Thus
the new filing deadline applies to all repeat options filed after the end
of the Spring 1994 semester (RC: 3/31/94)

* A student must be enrolled at UK at the time he/she files the repeat
option. Thus a student who has transferred to another institution would n=
ot
qualify since he/she is not enrolled at UK. (RC: 3/31/94)

* "The student must notify in writing the dean of the college in which th=
e
student is enrolled" means that a student must be enrolled at the time th=
e
repeat option is exercised. (RC: 3/31/94)

*Indicates Rules Committee interpretations

Background and Rationale: Earlier in the summer and in an attempt to
determine whether or not a student's suspension should be rescinded, a
member of the Central Advising Service (CAS) staff asked for a rule
interpretation governing the use of repeat options. Specifically, the
question was whether the same interpretation could be applied to a studen=
t
taking a repeat option for a letter grade as stipulated for a repeat opti=
on
taken pass/fail. The Rules Committee informally interpreted the Rules to
apply to both letter grade and pass/fail attempts and suggested new wordi=
ng
so that failure in a repeat option always resulted in the first grade
earned counting. The Senate Council disagreed with the Rules Committee, a=
nd
moved that the last sentence in paragraph one be deleted so that in all
cases, the repeat option (second attempt) is always the one to count.

Implementation: Immediate

Note: If approved, the proposal will be codified by the Rules Committee

The Chair recognized Professor Moore for the third action item. Professo=
r
Moore reviewed the item and recommended approval on behalf of the Senate
Council.

Jane Wells (Business and Economics) asked if a student was taking a cours=
e
for a letter grade and repeated the course pass/fail and failed the cours=
e,
would that improve the student=92s GPA overall by having the F replace th=
e E
that was first in the course and therefore the F not be counted in the
overall GPA?

George Myers (student Senator Social Work) asked about the first sentence
where it says that the student shall have the option to repeat once, if h=
e
had a class that was required for his major and took it the first time a=
nd
received a B, but wanted to get an A and retook and class and received an
E, so the E would have to stand because it was the second grade. He has =
to
have the class to graduate, so what happens?

George Blandford (Engineering) said that in the case the student should n=
ot
exercise the repeat option and both grades would be averaged, the student
would still have a passing grade and graduate.

Joe Schuler (Student Government) said that when there was a proposal the=
re
should be a reason behind it. The rationale for this proposal is that th=
ey
do not think the language is clear. When he reads the language it is
perfectly clear to him. He would like someone to explain the reasoning
behind this rule change.

Tom Blues (English) made a motion to send the proposal back to committee =
to
resolve the problem that Professor Wells mentioned.

Brad Canon (Political Science) said if the proposal was referred back to
the committee, the committee might also consider the issue of whether the
first grade should always count both for a course taken pass/fail on repe=
at
or for a course taken on a letter grade. One of the problems is they see=
m
to have different rules and they should have a consistent rule, although
the argument could be made that the first grade should count where it is
better than the second grade.

Doug Michael (Law) said that as chair of the committee he wanted to make
sure if the referral was specific or general.

The Chair stated that it was a general referral.

Mike Cibull (Medicine) asked that they include an answer to Joe Schuler=92=
s
question, providing a reason for the change.

The motion to refer back to the Rules Committee passed in a voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.




Patrick Herring
Acting Registrar