MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, NOVEMBER 10, 1997

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

Professor Jim Applegate, Chairperson of the Senate Council presided.

Members absent were: Debra Aaron, Behruz Abadi*, Laila Akhlaghi, Jim
Albisetti, Leon Assael, Ruth Baer, Terry Birdwhistell, Ben Bogia, Douglas
Boyd, Fitzgerald Bramwell, Geza Bruckner, Joseph Burch, Lauretta Byars,
Johnny Cailleteau, James Campbell, Brad Canon*, Ben Carr, Edward Carter,
Michael Cibull, Jordan Cohen, Charles Cooper, Raymond Cox*, Melanie Cruz,
Frederick Danner, Susan DeCarvalho, Philip deSimone, Robert Farquhar,
Juanita Fleming, Donald Frazier*, Michael Friedman, Richard Furst, Phili=
p
Greasley, Ellen Hahn, David Hamilton, Issam Harik*, Debra Harley, James
Holsinger, Patricia Howard, Rick Hoyle, Mark Ison, Raleigh Jones*, Stuart
Keller*, James Knoblett, Craig Koontz, Philipp Kraemer, Alan Leech, Thoma=
s
Lester, C. Oran Little, Donald Madden*, Steven Middendorf, Kim
Miller-Spillman, Karen Mingst*, David Mohney, Wolfgang Natter, Anthony
Newberry, Jacqueline Noonan, Thomas Pope, J. Todd P=92Pool, Shirley Raine=
s,
Dan Reedy, Thomas Robinson, Pamela Rountree, Edgar Sagan, Rosetta
Sandidge*, Horst Schach, Janice Schach, David Shipley, Gregory Smith*,
Edward Soltis*, Carrie Sparrow, Cidambi Srinivasan*, David Stockham, Thom=
as
Troland, George Wagner*, Retia Walker*, Jesse Weil, Charles Wethington*,
Stephan Wilson*, William Witt.

* Absence Explained

Chairperson Jim Applegate called the meeting to order and said he would
like to alter the agenda and go directly to the Report on the Student
Satisfaction Survey. He said that the Senate Council had heard this repo=
rt
and felt that the Senate should hear it. He hoped that this would serve =
as
a basis for a number of talking points between faculty and students. The=
y
were hoping to sponsor a Speak Out with the Student Activities Board at t=
he
first of next semester on this issue. Applegate noted that this
presentation; presented in other venues, has spawned a bit of defensivene=
ss
and blaming. He knows Dr. Christian-Ray does not want that to happen.
There is some very good news in here, some very good news about our
University. However, one example of an area of the survey about which we
need to be talking is its suggestions that students seem to think that
faculty have very little concern for whether or not they are able to
utilize what they get here in terms of gainful employment and contributio=
ns
when they get out. Faculty seem to think that students are too concerned
about career and part-time employment when they are here. He feels that
the truth lies somewhere in between. If we take that as a good point for
beginning to talk to one another we can do a better job of letting one
another know what we do care about and produce students who are both
academically engaged and better able to contribute meaningfully when they
graduate and maybe even earn a living wage. Applegate noted, this is a
University Senate. We have students and faculty present. He hopes this
will serve as a beginning point for conversations that extend beyond the
meeting today.

The Chair then introduced Dr. Connie Christian-Ray for a presentation on
the Student Satisfaction Survey.

Dr. Christian-Ray made the following remarks:

There were copies of the survey available at the library and she was
looking at getting it on the Web.

The purpose of this study was actually for them to take a closer look and
try to understand the nature and source of student satisfaction and
dissatisfaction with undergraduate instruction and noninstructional
services, and to make recommendations as they felt necessary for improvem=
ent.

The concern for student satisfaction actually came from feedback we were
getting on student survey data that we were required to report to the sta=
te
each year in an accountability report. The first slide is an example of
the 1994 Accountability Report from the Undergraduate Alumni Survey. The=
y
were asked to evaluate the quality of undergraduate instruction on a scal=
e
of 1 to 4. With 1 being poor and 4 being excellent. The Kentucky
Accountability Committee had also put forth a goal that said that we shou=
ld
be at least a 3.0 on a 4.0 scale on these kinds of items. The thinking
being that we should at least strive to be good which was the value that
anchored the 3.0. As you can see, the University fell somewhere in-betwe=
en
the 2 and 3. In this particular year we had a 2.6 rating on that item ou=
t
of the 4.0, and we were the lowest ranked institution when the Courier
Journal ranked in the newspaper all the institutions in Kentucky. We wer=
e
the only institution to fall short of that 3.0 goal that had been put for=
th.

There was another item that we were required to report on called the
Quality of Noninstructional Services. The item was also on the survey an=
d
in parentheses it said in other words or =93i.e., computer labs, librarie=
s,
etc.=94 We had the notion that students were responding to the computer =
labs
and libraries for the etceteras. This was an item on which we did not lo=
ok
nearly as bad, compared to the University of Louisville and others.
Comparatively, we were 2.7. We were second to the University of Louisvil=
le
but still short of the 3.0 goal. We decided we should look at these two
items and try to understand what was behind students=92 ratings when they=
did
these. Similar items are also on the Graduating Senior Survey and we wer=
e
getting similar results. We had two years worth of data like this that
went to the Accountability Report. It was not a one year result on one
survey that led us to this, it was a couple of years of fairly consistent
findings like this.

The Study Process slide goes through all the various steps of the process
and what we did in order to come up with the recommendations. Frequently=
,
when people ask me to come and speak, they ask me to talk about the surve=
y
findings. I like to correct them and emphasize that the recommendations
were based on several things and not just the survey. We started out
looking at other existing survey results; other years of the two surveys =
I
mentioned were reviewed, and we reviewed results from the Nonreturning
Student Survey and results of the SACS=92 Survey that was done in 1990-19=
91.
Both the students and faculty. We did that initially because we thought =
we
should use what we already knew to try to understand what was going on an=
d
not do additional surveys or focus groups or that sort of thing unless it
was necessary. We used those surveys to give us a few clues as to what t=
he
issues and concerns might be so we could go back and start thinking of th=
e
questions that still remained unanswered. We reviewed the related
literature very intensely at first and then throughout the year and a hal=
f
that they were together. We started out looking for articles that
investigated college student satisfaction and what were the predictors of
satisfaction. We looked at a lot of theoretical articles about what was
important in quality of instruction in the living-learning process. We
looked at articles about the need for change in higher education and how
society is changing and how the student population is changing and
therefore what are some of the changes we might need to look at.

After we had done that, we decided we should have a more intense day-long
meeting and invite some people to come and talk with us, who might be abl=
e
to answer some of the questions that we had developed as a result of the
first two steps. We had a day-long meeting and invited some people from
advising, student affairs, minority affairs, and some to talk about the
curriculum. At the end of the meeting we decided we wanted to move forwa=
rd
with a series of focus groups so we could sit down and someone could have=
a
conversation with both students and faculty and try to get even more
information about the questions that had come up. We put together a data
collection plan that consisted of three points. We interviewed a variety
of people throughout campus, people who came to the meeting and talked wi=
th
us. We sent instructional faculty a letter and asked for their input on
what they thought were the concerns of students in terms of student
satisfaction. We really made an effort to try to involve a lot of people
across campus that would have something to say about this. That was the
first part of the data collection.

The second part was the focus groups. We conducted eighteen all together.
Four were instructional faculty who had taught at least one undergraduate
course in the past year, selected at random to be representative of the
size of the colleges. There were fourteen student focus groups. The
students were chosen at random, but to represent specific subpopulations
such as: women, African-Americans, community college transfers, non
traditional students; there was a group of students on academic probation=
,
and various groups of different year classifications. They were selected
at random. We recruited twelve or fourteen for each group. They were
offered a nice incentive package and we had good participation. We felt
really good about the whole process, we felt it was probably one of the
best focus group efforts on campus because the participation was good on
both the student and faculty side. We brought in an outside consulting
firm, simply because we wanted to insure as much as we could that anyone
who spent two hours with that person talking to them about the questions
they posed would feel comfortable with being honest and open with their
answers. That happened in October of last year. The sample survey, whic=
h
is what you tend to hear the most about, occurred last Spring. It was a
random sample survey with a 33% response rate. It tended to be something
that would confirm what we had already heard rather than to break new
ground. We took a lot of things that were said in the focus groups as fa=
r
as what students were concerned about and what faculty thought needed to
happen and made items about them and put them on the survey to try and
confirm the focus group findings. From all of those things, we developed
the recommendations.

The fifth slide is an example of the kinds of people we talked to during
the course of the year and a half of meetings. People who came to the
meetings and discussed issues with us such as advising, preparation of
students, the balancing/juggling act of faculty with students, teaching a=
nd
research activities, the conditions of classrooms, what the library and
computer labs needed, the people from Career Planning and Placement talke=
d
with us, and there were representatives from various special populations.
This is an example of the concerns they had. There were many more and
they are in the report.

The sixth slide is an example of some of the focus group findings. When =
we
did the focus groups, we made a point to probe for both strengths and
weaknesses. To be fair, I would say we probed more for weaknesses, becau=
se
we were looking for areas in which we needed to improve. Keep in mind th=
at
the focus groups took place October a year ago, right after the semester
where there had been some racial occurrences on campus and tensions were
high. It was also the same semester when the new printing fee in the
computer labs was implemented and tempers were high about that. So there
are some things that need to be put into relation as to what was going on
at the time. =20

The following were sighted as weaknesses:

-Racial tension on campus
-various aspects of residence hall life, opportunities for communication
and interaction (students with students, students with faculty, students
with administration), adequate space and facilities designed for
interaction, there were a lot of positive things said about the Intermez=
zo
and the need for more of that kind of space
-large class sizes which is a common complaint on a campus like this
-the complexity of University Studies and the need for it to be revised
-inferior instruction by teaching assistants was cited by students and th=
ey
also used the word =93proliferation=94 of TAs; too many of them, they f=
elt
-students felt that faculty research took time and interest away from tea=
ching
-faculty felt that student employment took time and interest away from
studying
-location of faculty offices and the time of their hours
-computer availability and disrepair (that has a star by it because of th=
e
issue of availability and accessibility. The people who did the focus
groups decided that was one of the two greatest hassles on this campus,
with the other one being parking)
-computer lab printing fees
-the existing libraries in general (the students tended to say there were
two things
good about our library; one, it was open twenty-four hours, and the othe=
r
that
we were getting a new one)
-academic advising (there was a lot about advising both in the interviews
and the
focus groups; too many advisors giving bad advice leading to extra
courses, some faculty who like advising getting overworked and having to
do too much)
-parking
-campus bureaucracy

I am not sure there is anything here with which you would disagree. Ther=
e
were not any surprises for us. We did feel like we should move forward
with the sample survey and try to confirm this.

We used the Noel-Levitz student satisfaction inventory for three reasons;
one being to get at this kind of information. It you think back to the
second slide that looked at the accountability ratings and how we were
being compared to other institutions in the State of Kentucky--when that
happens, the first question that pops into my mind was--those were other
Kentucky institutions. We are different and have a different mission and
population. What would it be like if we were compared to other research
institutions? We knew the Noel-Levitz instrument allowed us to compare o=
ur
students=92 responses to a national comparison group. We did that. The
results were very positive for our students. The next thing we did was t=
o
narrow that comparison group down to other Research I and II institutions=
,
because we felt would be even more relevant. There were just nine of tho=
se
and you had to have at least seven before Noel-Levitz would let you use
them as a comparison group. That is why we added a Research II group to
the Research I. We had to do that in order to get a total of seven, and =
by
doing that, we came up with nine. They are all listed in the report. We
did not include all of our benchmarks; just one, Ohio State, was in there.
You have to keep that in mind when you think about these results. It was
Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Auburn, Kent, SUNY-Albany, and
University of Illinois-Chicago. It was representative geographically of
the country. But they were not necessarily those institutions we have
aspired to in terms of our benchmarks.

On the Noel-Levitz there were 79 items divided into 12 scales. Students
said how important each item was to them and how satisfied they were with
what they were getting from the university on that item. On 8 of the 12
scales, our students were significantly more satisfied than all of the
Research I and II institutions. On 47 of the 79 items they were
significantly more satisfied. On every single item that made up the scal=
e
that was labeled instructional effectiveness our students were
significantly more satisfied than the comparison group. We felt like thi=
s
was a real positive finding and it gives us some information that we can
use when we try to explain to external constituents why we do not compare
too well to other institutions in Kentucky. We can say we are different
now and we can say we have information that compares us to more similar
institutions that looks a lot better. So we have something to work with.=
=20

We were significantly less satisfied on 6 of the 79 items. Those are the
six items that the Kernel used in its first article. The first article
looked at these six, with parking being number one. We know this and it =
is
something we talk about and hear a lot about on this campus. We know tha=
t
students are generally unhappy with parking on other college campuses as
well. But our students were significantly less satisfied with student
parking.

The other areas were:

-a strong commitment to racial harmony
-library resources and services
-computer labs are adequate and accessible
-residence hall regulations are reasonable (Student Affair=92s people sa=
y
this is probably due to the 24 hour visitation rule that we do not have=
)
-Institution=92s commitment to commuters (one thing we did conclude after
looking at this information is that we are probably much more of commute=
r
institution than we think of ourselves. We advertise ourselves as a
residential institution in such publications as the Peterson Guide, but
clearly the majority of our students are commuters - some of that
dissatisfaction might actually be part of the parking problem reflected,
as well as some items such as getting the run around)=20

As I said earlier, the students could do two things for each item, they
could rate its importance to them and then they could rate how satisfied
they were with it. After we looked at the satisfaction ratings, there we=
re
the importance ratings. This was quite gratifying, to see that what
students ranked as the most important to them were their academic concern=
s.
These are the top five:

-Instruction in major field is excellent
-Content of courses in major is valuable
-Academic advisor is knowledgeable about major
-Quality of instruction received in most classes is excellent
-Nearly all faculty are knowledgeable in their fields

The fifth item about faculty being knowledgeable and up to date and exper=
ts
in their fields was a strength that came out in the focus groups, and thi=
s
survey also confirmed that. This was something very important to student=
s,
and as you can see, it is not one of the gaps. We thought that this spok=
e
well of our student body as a whole, that when we looked at a lot of
different things such as services, social activities and instruction, it
was really the academic concerns that were at the top.

Then we went to the performance gaps. This is another reason we used the
Noel-Levitz, it allowed us to compute what they called the performance ga=
p,
which is the difference between the average importance rating on an item
and the average satisfaction rating on an item. The project team started
talking early on, before we ever looked at the Noel-Levitz and learned
about performance gaps, about the difference in student expectations, wha=
t
they expect to find when they come here and what they find when they get
here. We felt like there were probably some areas where there were gaps.
Whether their expectations were realistic or not, we did not really debat=
e.
We felt that if it was an expectation and it was not met that would be o=
ne
source of dissatisfaction. The Noel-Levitz really fit well with some of
our thinking that developed as we went through the process. The gap is t=
he
difference in importance and satisfaction. If I had real high importance
in, say, =93the content of my major courses is valuable,=94 and that is r=
eally
important to me, and I get into my major courses and my satisfaction is
really low, then there is a large gap. If intercollegiate athletics are
not particularly important to me and I am not particularly satisfied then
the gap is going to be smaller. According to the Noel-Levitz theory, the
larger the performance gap, the more closely you should look at that item
in terms of something you might want to work to improve on your campus.
Noel-Levitz says that once you have identified those very large performan=
ce
gaps, go back and look to see which of those items are also very importan=
t
to students. You do not want to spend a lot of time, effort, and resourc=
es
on an item that has a large performance gap but maybe it was not really
that important to students. Parking is a good example. Parking falls
about 33rd out of 103 in terms of importance to students even though it w=
as
the top performance gap. For the 103 items that we could compute a
performance gap, the average was 1.24. That might give you a kind of an
anchor in your mind as we look at some of these.

The first thing we did when we started on the performance gaps was we wen=
t
through and identified those which fell in the top 25%. Out of 103 items
there were 28 which had a gap of 1.50 or greater. We identified that as =
a
target group that we might want to look at and think about in addition to
our focus group findings and our interview data as we form our
recommendations. They really address a wide variety of issues from:

-parking
-the library
-getting the run around
-computer services
-registration
-financial aid
-student activity fees
-residence halls
-USP courses
-preparing for my major
-concerns for individuals
-channels for expressing complaints
-interesting, creative course materials
-billing policy
-fair, unbiased, and caring faculty
-opportunities for practical work experience
-quality of instruction

These are in a little bit of priority order in that there were two items
that had to do with parking and we put them in that category, but one of
the items was the first, it was the largest performance gap. The five by
library resources and services--out of 28 of the top performance gaps, fi=
ve
of those items had to do with library resources and services. So two of
those were in second and third place in terms of the large performance
gaps. So there is a little bit of a prioritization.

Looking at how broad these were in terms of addressing so many different
things, that really gave us a feeling that maybe we were not projecting a
very good climate for living and learning on this campus.

We made a commitment early on to consider the concerns of special
populations, so after we looked at overall performance gaps we started
looking at the African-American responses, female responses, community
college transfer responses, and in the classifications, seniors in
specific, since they are the ones that make it through and tend to respon=
d
to the items that end up in the accountability reporting. When we did
that, two more items came up as being top concerns among those special
populations, and we added these two to the group to consider when making
recommendations; =93the campus is safe and secure=94 and =93campus staff =
are
caring and helpful.=94

I mentioned earlier that we looked at classifications; freshmen,
sophomores, juniors, and seniors, and throughout all of this, we had to
analyze this data in a number of ways, and we tried to cast a wide net
because we knew there were a lot of different ideas about how to manage a=
nd
analyze this kind of data. We wanted to be as inclusive as we could. We
tried to look for trends and patterns and consistencies that kept popping
up from the related literature, to the other survey findings, and to the
focus groups. The USP issue was one where we were able to take what was
said in the focus groups and create customized items and put them on the
Noel-Levitz. That was another reason we used the Noel-Levitz, because th=
ey
allowed us to add some of our own items. When we looked at the USP items
this way--they did not really bubble up to the surface very much when we
looked at top performance gaps, but when we looked at them in terms of wh=
at
freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors said, we saw a very clear tren=
d.
That was, for every item that addressed the USP the performance gap
increased from the freshman to the senior year. We felt like that was a
strong enough message that we needed to at least revisit it.

One of the last things we did was (a regression)....first of all we looke=
d
at a lot of means. We had a 103 items and the importance ratings and
satisfaction ratings and performance gaps and that took a long time to lo=
ok
at. The project team was saying =93how do we bring this down and make so=
me
sense of it and make some recommendations?=94 We had varying theories as=
to
what should go in a regression model and what should be the outcome and
what some of the explanatory variables should be. We developed eight
different models and we tested eight. If you want anymore information
about those, I will be more than happy to provide it. There is not a lot
of statistical information in the actual report. The numbers you see on
the items on the Survey Findings slide are how many times that item came =
up
in a regression model as a significant explanatory variable. The =93TAs =
as
competent instructors=94 came up every time, and it was highly significan=
t.
The second item that came up the most often was =93whether course materia=
ls
are presented in an interesting and creative manner,=94 and that came up
seven times.

The other ones were:

-Faculty as effective communicators
-Academic advisors being approachable
-Content of major courses valuable
-Academic advisors knowledgeable about major
-Faculty enthusiastic about subject
-Opportunities to interact with faculty
-Faculty enthusiastic about teaching (we separated subject and teaching,
Sometimes you see those two on the same item)
-Major requirements are clear and reasonable
-Faculty fair and unbiased
-Opportunities for practical work experience (the other part of that said
in my major, so that is related to the major again)
-Faculty care about individual students

These came up at least once. Now this is not saying that students had lo=
w
satisfaction on these. These are the items that tended to predict whethe=
r
or not a student would say that the quality of instruction is excellent,
good, fair or poor. That was the outcome.

We came up with 12 conclusions, and they really parallel the
recommendations. The first was to develop a service-oriented campus
climate. This had to do with training all of our front line staff to be
more customer service oriented. If you do not like the word customer, yo=
u
can put student service oriented in there. It really has to do with
answering questions and making sure that students get what they need when
they go to an office for help. There is a lot that can be done with
computer technology and reliability of information for cross-training and
just making our campus more effective in terms of responding to students=92
need for information.

The second--creating a community appreciative of differences--was really =
in
support of continuing the efforts of the Inclusive Learning Community
Committee and the response to the concerns about racial tension on campus.

-Improving the quality of instruction by TAs
-Facilitating effective, creative instruction
-Communicating faculty respect/concern to students (we talked a lot about
this whole item that kept cropping up that faculty are fair and unbiased
in their treatment of individual students and there was a large
performance gap there and it was very important to students. We really
decided that this was a by- product of the lack of good communication and
interaction between students and faculty. We felt like we needed more.)

-Improving information access and services at the libraries - we think th=
at
we are doing that as we go into the new library. We also mention that
our focus should not be just the new library but make sure that all the
libraries are providing students and faculty with the services they need.
-Improving computer access and use of technology in classrooms
-Re-examining and revising USP
-Improving academic advising for USP and major program - actually we foun=
d
that when we did the regressions that advising in the major came up as a
concern where generally we got feedback that it was USP causing those
problems. The students that give us poor evaluations on the quality of
instruction, it looks like maybe they are getting to their major and not
being happy there as well.
-Helping students make transitions to the world of work -this had to do
with the whole career development issue.
-Improving residence hall life and campus safety and security - we had so=
me
early=20
indications from the focus groups that the students were not very happy
with residence hall life. None of the items on these two really ended =
up
being important for our purpose, which was to try to understand the
quality of instruction ratings and the quality of noninstructional
services ratings. We got some pretty strong negative feedback on these
two items, so we felt like we should put forth recommendations for them =
as
well, given that the University is very interested in issues of retentio=
n
and graduation rates and we thought there could be some connections ther=
e.

I will be glad to take a few questions.

George Myers (student - Social Work) asked if Dr. Christian-Ray would spe=
ak
to the process by which the questions were chosen for both the focus grou=
ps
and the surveys. He also asked if he could have a copy of the survey.

Dr. Christian-Ray said that they added thirty questions to the Noel-Levit=
z
and they were taken from what students said in the focus groups. In many
cases we took verbatim phrases that students used to come up with the
questions. We did not go back to students then and ask them to look at o=
r
approve them. They did come from student input.

She said that she would give him a copy of the whole report.

George Myers asked now that they had come to these conclusions, what was
the process for making change?

Dr. Christian-Ray said that what she was doing right now was probably one
of the most important things; getting out in the University community and
talking about their findings and recommendations. Encouraging everyone t=
o
discuss in their own units what they think might be the best way to move
forward. The project team put forth some possible initiatives, but they
did that tentatively. They felt like people in the units knew more than
what they did in terms of everyday operations and issues, and they would =
be
able to talk about it and formulate initiatives. The other thing that th=
ey
were doing was trying to incorporate these recommendations into the
strategic planning process. They are right now revising the University=92=
s
strategic plan and many of these things will be in there.

Mary Burke (Medicine) said that the student satisfaction questionnaire
reminded her of the discussion in the College of Medicine. In medicine
they talk a lot about patient satisfaction. Sometimes they get very
elaborate with their questionnaires and then take a step back and say doe=
s
this have anything to do with an important outcome. What is the process =
by
which they decided how does student satisfaction equate with the
appropriate outcomes, whatever that might be, with education.

Dr. Christian-Ray said that the appropriate outcome is enhancement in the
quality of what we do. We are being increasingly asked to demonstrate th=
at
they are doing a good job. In the accountability movement and performanc=
e
funding type of things that are sweeping the country and our state as wel=
l,
part of that equation or what they are asking for in order to document th=
at
quality is feedback from the students. That is from a practical standpoi=
nt
and we must respond to those requests and those people believe that stude=
nt
input is part of what should be used to document problems. Quality in
education is such an elusive thing, we do not have a bottom line like the=
y
do in business, so they use a variety of indicators to help make the case
for quality and student satisfaction has become one of those important
ones. From my perspective, the whole issue of passing on knowledge to th=
e
next generation, students are half of that equation, therefore their
perspective is valuable.

Chairperson Applegate said that the Senate had talked before about
retention rates, at UK and our low retention rates compared with their
benchmarks. That is another outcome they hope this survey will help us t=
o
address.

Dr. Christian-Ray said that retention was an issue which they tried to
separate--satisfaction from retention--because they were really studying
satisfaction, but according to the Noel-Levitz theory and others things,
there is definitely a relationship. Retention and graduation rates are n=
ot
just a statewide focus but a national focus.

Dr. Christian-Ray was given a round of applause.

The Chair said that a lot of questions had been asked about the new libra=
ry
and the transition to the new library. He introduced Paul Willis, Direct=
or
of Libraries to talk about the transition plan as we move into next
semester. Hopefully, in December, Paul will come back and give a fuller
explanation of what the new library will entail.

Paul Willis made the following remarks:

There are copies of the Student Satisfaction Report on reserve in the Kin=
g
Library.

I am passing around some interior photographs of the building. I have a
video of the interior which I can show in December. Judy Sacket is the
library=92s construction liaison for the new building. Mary Molinaro wil=
l be
the team leader for the new building.

The move will not disrupt collections during the semester. We can go abo=
ut
assigning term papers, research papers and so forth as usual.

Even when the move occurs, whether that is in-between semesters or whethe=
r
we have to wait until next May, our move contract requires that even item=
s
in transit have to be made available within 24 hours. Even if we move at
low peak times, the collection will not be inaccessible. We will use a
professional library mover. Of our two low bids, one is from a mover in
Connecticut and the other Massachusetts, they bring special computer
programs, special equipment, and expertise. They use local labor to move
the collections. =20

We hope to make the move during the coming semester break. If the buildi=
ng
is not turned over in time to do that, then the book collections will not
be moved until May. Once the building is turned over to us, there is a l=
ot
of computing equipment to setup. There is considerable time between when
we get the building and when it can be opened to the public. We already
know for sure we do not plan to move any of the materials that come from
the Medical Center Library, Biological Sciences, or Agriculture between
semesters; all of that move will wait until May. We do not want to rush
final construction of the building nor do we want to share the building
with contractors. We want the key to the building, everything finished,
and the contractors out. Even now we face the situation constantly when =
we
are over there looking at things the question is: =93Do you want us to f=
ix
that the way it was suppose to be or do you want us to finish the project=
?=94
We simply cannot let ourselves get into a situation where we compromise
the quality of the building. We have waited a long time for it. The
building is going to have a long life span and there is no reason at this
stage to settle for anything other than what we programmed, asked for, an=
d
have paid for.

Why not do the collection move at Spring break? The move of King
Collections will probably take at least four weeks. As part of the move =
we
are going to relabel about 700,000 volumes from the Dewey Classification
System to the Library of Congress System, so that in the new building we
will only have one primary classification system. So our move is not a
typical move.

The movers who bid on the contract were very careful, one of them came an=
d
pulled the truck up to the loading dock at King South, got on an elevator
and went up to where the collections are, came back down, went to Rose
Street, went to the loading dock of the new building, then went to
Agriculture, the Medical Center, and Biological Sciences and reported tha=
t
you cannot get to the loading dock at the Medical Center. When you get o=
n
Rose Street all you do is sit. We are moving not only King, but 100,000
volumes from the Medical Center Library, all of Biological Sciences, and
the bulk of the book collection from Agriculture.

If the collection move does get delayed until May, we will likely open th=
e
new building as soon as we have the PC, audio visual classrooms, the
meeting rooms, and the faculty and graduate student studies ready for use.
We will know the schedule before Thanksgiving and will get word out on it.

The question was asked if there was money available to remodel King.

Paul Willis answered that there was not. The only money available
following the move of main services out of King is for things which stay
there; the Library School on the fifth floor, a computer lab, the map
collection, Radio Eye, and the STAARS lab will stay. The President has
committed the money to fix King so that those services can stay open
without having to keep the whole building open. Phase II of our project =
is
to take the 1931 part of King South and make it Special Collections and
Archives, we have a proposal to turn the 1963 addition with an entrance i=
n
the back facing Pence into a Science and Engineering Library, that is sti=
ll
being talked about. We do have money to turn two floors of the King Nort=
h
Building into a Fine Arts Library and Learning Center. That architectura=
l
work is underway. We do not have money for the Phase II projects for Kin=
g
South. That decision is up in the air. In addition no firm decision has
been made in creating a Science and Engineering Library.

Paul Willis was given a round of applause.

The Chair made the following announcements:

On November 13, 1997, Loys Mather, our faculty trustees, I, and senate
leaders around the state, are invited to have lunch with the Governor and
talk about higher education reform: the criteria for the new incentive
funds and a variety of issues related to House Bill 1. If you check your
Web page this will be on there and we are asking for your input. If you
have particular issues or questions that you feel like need to be address=
ed
as we talk to the Governor about where we are now and where we are headed=
,
we would certainly open to any suggestions and bring up any issues when w=
e
meet.

On November 11, 1997 the AAUP is sponsoring a seminar at 3:00 p.m., in 10=
2
Mining and Minerals Resources Building on the issue of Post-Tenure Review.
There will be representatives there from the national AAUP office. This =
is
part of a continuing discussion we are having about this issue this year;
an issue which is one part of the Promotion and Tenure Task Force Report.
We wanted to extensively discuss this particular part of that report
(post-tenture review) before we came to any action item discussions in th=
e
Senate. Today we have a couple of action items on other issues we are
addressing from the Task Force Report and we will soon be rolling out
various other items from the P&T Task Force Report as well as a Task Forc=
e
that is just getting its report to the Senate Council on the special titl=
e
series. Tomorrow=92s meeting with the AAUP may be an opportunity to hear=
yet
another perspective on the post-tenure review issue.

We have three new Senate Council members elected that will take office on
January 1, 1998. Usually when people join the council they are a little
bit taken back by how often we meet (every Monday for 2 full hours), and
how much we cover, but I have forewarned these people and they are still
willing to do it. So I thank them for that. They are: Don Frazier,
College of Medicine, Dave Durant, English, and Bill Fortune from the
College of Law. We welcome them and look forward to working with them in
the coming year.

On Tuesday, December 9, 1997, from 4:00 p.m.- 6:00 p.m., is the Senate
Council reception for the Board of Trustees, generally known as the Holid=
ay
Social will be held. It will be held this year in the President=92s Room=
of
the Singletary Center.

There has been a slight change in the Advising Calendar for community
college transfer students cleared for fall admission. The advising dates
currently appear as April 17, 1998, however that will happen on April 24,
1998, a Friday.

The minutes from September 8, 1997 have been distributed. There were no
corrections to the minutes and they were approved as circulated.

ACTION ITEM I - Proposal to eliminate the Prior Service Committee and
define a policy on waiver of Prior Service. A recommendation from the
University Senate to the Administration.

Recommendations

1. Appropriate Administrative and Governing Regulations be modified (AR I=
II
- 1.0-3; AR II - 1.0-1; AR II - 1.1-8, AR II - 5.0-2 and GRS) such that a=
n
incoming faculty member may request the waiver of all prior service. Suc=
h
a waiver will be a part of the negotiation of job conditions at the time =
of
hiring, and can be changed at any time during the first year of appointme=
nt
in the tenured faculty position but no later than this. The Dean of the
College will be part of the negotiations to ensure uniform application of
the policy.

2. There will be no consideration of these requests by the Senate Advisor=
y
Committee on Prior Service. This Committee will be eliminated. [See
University Senate Rules, Section I - 1.4.5.4 and appropriate Regulations
cited in 1. above.]

3. To ensure that all incoming faculty are aware of their right to reques=
t
such a waiver, a statement of the right shall be printed on the initial
appointment form or an addendum and be initialed by the faculty member at
the time of accepting the appointment.

Rationale
This proposal is one of the recommendations made in the report of the
Senate Council Task Force on Promotion and Tenure. The Task Force review=
ed
the promotion and tenure system during the 1996-97 academic year. It is
forwarded with the recommendation of the Senate Council with the followin=
g
specific rationale.

Any change of institution is disturbing to the progress of a faculty
member=92s research program and should be grounds for an extension in tim=
e
allowed to build a good research record. Most people in non-tenure track
lines at the University of Kentucky are not eligible to apply for grant
support in their own names and hence also should not have that time count=
ed
in their probationary period.

In addition, a review shows that requests for waiver of prior service in
the past have almost all been granted and hence consideration by a
committee is largely a waste of time.

Note: If approved, the proposed recommendations will be forwarded to the
President for appropriate administrative consideration.

The Chair recognized Chair-elect Roy Moore for introduction of the item.
Professor Moore reviewed the item and recommended approval on behalf of t=
he
Senate Council.

Chairperson Applegate said that Mike Neitzel who co-chaired the committee
was in attendance and asked him to make a few comments, having been in on
the committee discussions on the issues.

Mike Nietzel made the following remarks:

Let me just say a couple of additional things. There were three criteria
that the subcommittee looked at. The subcommittee was concerned with
procedures and process for promotion and tenure. They wanted to look at
changes that would help the institution make good decisions as far as
increasing or enhancing the quality of the promotion process and of the
faculty. They wanted to look at procedures that would help promote facul=
ty
development and improve chances for faculty to be successful here. Third=
,
they looked at the matter of decreasing those aspects of the bureaucracy
that did not appear to be doing much useful. My apologies to those of yo=
u
who served on the Prior Service Committee, I do not mean to say anything
negative about your work on that committee, but our records indicate that
most of these requests concerned faculty who came from institutions where
they had very high teaching loads. They may have been appointed here
initially in a non-tenured position and did not have access to research
resources. The committee almost always approved the request. We do thin=
k
that in this day and age it is reasonable to have this particular aspect =
of
the hiring decision be negotiated between the faculty member who would
presumably have his or her best interest at heart as well as the
administrator who is hiring that faculty member. We think that this real=
ly
is a matter that can be handled quite effectively in the negotiation
between the individual being appointed and the director or chair of the
department. With deans, in the cases where there is not a chair, making
sure that the person is well aware of this option and understands it
clearly. This is one that is a combination of believing that it would be
more efficient to do so, that this matter can get resolved in the first
year. Sometimes the affirmative vote from the committee came quite a bit
later after the request had been made, so we had a very long delay. This
recommendation addresses both the efficiency issue and one that we think
does promote effective faculty development.

David Durant (English) said that the item was worded such that it appeare=
d
that a faculty member could request such a waiver, but not that it would =
be
granted. We would be moving power in this area from faculty committee to
administrators. Will administrators grant such waivers? He sees the poi=
nt
that the faculty usually granted them, but are they confident that
administrators will grant them?

Mike Neitzel said that it seemed to him to be something to be discussed, =
if
the faculty member being hired thinks this is an important thing. They
have had two years of prior service at the previous institution and reall=
y
want to have that waived and the chair believes that is a good idea
presumably it would be waived. He can not assure him, but it seems to hi=
m
that most chairs would be interested in facilitating the faculty member=92=
s
request. It does seem that in a vast majority of cases that would be wha=
t
would happen. Presumably there would be cases where the chair might make
some different advice to the person. I do not think that we can guarante=
e
that they would always be granted. Then it becomes a matter for the
potential faculty member to consider in terms of accepting the offer. It
seems to make it much clearer than what they currently have, which is the
person requests it and they do not hear for a year or in some cases longe=
r.

The proposal passed in a voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 2 - Proposed modifications to Governing Regulations (GR X-3ff=
)
relative to interruption of the tenure clock for up to one year).

Recommendation
Modifications to the Governing Regulations of the University of Kentucky
(1/12/92), Page X-3ff. are proposed at this time which specify the
following understandings relative to probationary periods and the grantin=
g
of tenure. Material to be added is underlined; material to be deleted is
in brackets:

2. Probationary Periods
2. Probationary periods (or maximum non-tenure periods) are not applicabl=
e
in cases where faculty members are appointed (1) in the research, Medical
Center clinical, adjunct, visiting, or voluntary series of academic ranks
and titles, or (2) on a part-time or temporary basis. In all such
appointments, faculty members are ineligible for tenure.

Probationary periods are applicable, however, to non-tenured appointments
of faculty members on a full-time year-to-year basis in the regular,
special title, extension, or librarian series of academic ranks and title=
s.
Such non-tenured appointments may be for one year or for other stated
periods, subject to renewal. The total non-tenure period, however, shall
not exceed [seven] eight years, including previous full-time service with
the rank of instructor or higher in other independently accredited
institutions of higher learning, provided that in the case of a faculty
member with more than three years in the academic profession, who is call=
ed
from another independently accredited institution and appointed at the ra=
nk
of associate professor or below, it may be required that the individual
serve in a probationary status for a period not to exceed four years, eve=
n
though thereby the individual=92s total non-tenure period in the academic
profession is extended beyond [seven] eight years. However, in any case
where a period of prior service of a prospective faculty member involves
significantly different institutional objectives or significantly differe=
nt
professional activity, all or part of the period of prior service may be
eliminated from consideration in determining the maximum non-tenure perio=
d
in the University System or the Community College System of the Universit=
y
of Kentucky. Except as provided in Part X.C.7, time spent on leave of
absence shall count of probationary period service unless the University =
in
granting the leave and the individual in accepting it agree to the
contrary. In such circumstances, the process of tenure review may
reasonably be extended by one full academic or calendar year consistent
with the appointment, contract, rank and prior service of the individual
member. That is, rather than being reviewed in the sixth year, the revie=
w
would occur no later than the seventh year of an appointment. In the eve=
nt
that tenure is not awarded following review in the seventh year, the
terminal contract would occur in the eighth year. The ordinary review of
faculty remains in the sixth year of the seven year probationary period.
However during the probationary period, faculty members, in consultation
with appropriate administrators (Division Director, Department Chair, or
Dean), may elect to interrupt their University service WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
for a period of time not to exceed one full year of appointment,
discretionary decision-making relative to the granting of such interrupti=
on
of University service shall remain between the individual faculty member
and the appropriately authorized administrator. (Division Director,
Department Chair, or Dean). It is recognized that the University and its
units are subject to all appropriate state and federal laws, including bu=
t
not limited to the Family Medical Leave Act and any and all other such la=
ws
as may apply.

Rationale
This proposal is one of the recommendations made in the report of the
Senate Council Task Force on Promotion and Tenure. The Task Force review=
ed
the promotion and tenure system during the 1996-97 academic year. It is
forwarded with the recommendation of the Senate Council with the followin=
g
specific rationale.

The purpose of a specified period of probationary review is to provide a
time frame that permits faculty to demonstrate scholarly productivity in
order that an accurate assessment by the institution can be made relative
to the individual=92s professional competencies. That is, accurate
assessment by the institution of the individual=92s competencies are
essential to the granting of a lifetime position within the organization.
An arbitrary time frame that does not acknowledge the impact of life even=
ts
may lead the organization to dismiss a scholar of great potential. The
flexibility offered in this proposal does not affect the right of the
organization to make these assessments of faculty potential in a timely
fashion and does not prohibit meritorious faculty from moving forward
toward tenure in a timely fashion (that is, this is a =93budget neutral=94
proposal). It does provide equal opportunity to ALL faculty members,
regardless of their life circumstances, to demonstrate their scholarly
competencies. There is nothing inherently =93magical=94 about a six year
probationary time frame. In fact, rigid application of that requirement
may limit the growth of the Institution by untimely release of talented
scholars who have experienced =93life intrusion=94. The proposal is cons=
istent
with decisions of major Fortune 500 companies and other business entities
which acknowledge the complexities of life circumstances that often affec=
t
the most valuable resource of an organization -- the employee.

Note: If approved, the proposed recommendation will be forwarded to the
President for appropriate administrative consideration.

The Chair recognized Roy Moore for introduction of the item. Dr. Moore
reviewed the background of the item and recommended approval on behalf of
the Senate Council.

Dr. Moore asked Professor Neitzel to highlight the rationale of the propo=
sal.

Professor Neitzel said this item was a bit more controversial. The
rationale was the belief that increasingly faculty are affected by
personal, family, and professional contingencies and difficulties that ma=
y
make the typical seven year review period no longer the most appropriate.
Recognition also of the fact that other institutions have gone to longer
extensions. Considerable concern about the fact that if they provide thi=
s
are they simply increasing the expectations, in terms of faculty
productivity so that now they expect seven years of measured productivity
instead of six and so really they are not doing any advantage to faculty =
by
this. This was really a proposal meant to advantage faculty who for some
personal reasons needed it in terms of making the progress and having the
success that they wanted them to have. We intend to have and the languag=
e
was intended to convey, the normal review period would be at the end of s=
ix
years, but they recognize that there are a variety of circumstances that
may no longer be good for the faculty member and the institution to permi=
t
this suspension of the tenure clock for one year. It was considered in
terms of national developments as well as the committee who finally reach=
ed
a unanimous endorsement of this, feeling this would be good for the
institution=92s long term interest. He asked Enid Waldhart (Communicatio=
ns
and Information Studies) if he had omitted anything. She said the key
phrase that they wanted expressed is =93without prejudice=94 that the phr=
ase is
there very deliberately. It is not to be held against anyone who would
have such interruption that somehow they are less good. That phrase is
very important. Professor Neitzel said that there was clearly no intenti=
on
of discouraging early promotion and tenure. That was a concern that was
also raised.

David Adams (Mathematics) asked is there was any criteria for deciding wh=
en
this should be granted? Professor Neitzel said that they did not discuss
criteria, they left this to be a matter that would be discussed between
individual faculty members and administrators. There was a discussion
having hopefully done away with the Prior Service Committee, should there
be a committee that would evaluate the quality of the requests, no one
wanted to serve.

Hans Gesund (Engineering) favored the proposal provided it was limited to
situations where someone has to take time off for family or similar
problems. In that case, this is something we want. He is afraid that wh=
at
will happen is that people who do not =91cut the mustard=92 will take a l=
eave
to publish or do some research and get eight years to do what other peopl=
e
are normally expected to do in six or seven years. That worries him. He
is all for doing this when there is a family or similar crisis in someone=
=92s
life and they need the extra time because of that. To make this availabl=
e
to anyone, and this is what this does; =93may elect to interrupt their
university service without prejudice=94. Anyone can do this without any =
good
family reason simply in order to fatten their resume and get their
promotion and pension. This is then going to become the norm. It will
become an eight year system and most Ivy league schools already have a te=
n
or twelve year system. He is not in favor of heading that way. His othe=
r
concern was, where would AAUP stand on this, he would not want them to ge=
t
censured by AAUP for deviating from the AAUP requirements.

Mike Neitzel said he was not sure about the last question. Professor Jes=
se
Weil was a member of the subcommittee and there was a lot of discussion
about it. The Chair does have to approve this request. The issue of
criteria about how that is applied is not identified. Professor Gesund
said it did not say that, it said =93however during the probationary peri=
od
faculty members in consultation with appropriate administrators may elect
to interrupt their university service without prejudice.=94 In other wor=
ds,
it is the faculty member=92s call. The Chair said that later it said
=93decisions granting such interruption of service shall remain between t=
he
individual faculty member and the appropriate authorized administrator.=94
Professor Gesund said that they may be able to editorially fix the propos=
al
to say what they think it should say. He still has a problem with it, as=
a
former chair, if a faculty member who seemed like a nice guy came to him
and said =93I am not going to be able to make it=94 and he looked at his =
resume
and saw it was an iffy sort of proposition, that faculty member and he
could well agree =93yes, take a year, we will get you a grant of some typ=
e or
send you somewhere, to fatten up that resume and go ahead.=94 I am not s=
ure
that is in the best interest of the university. =20

Mike Neitzel asked when he said =93fatten up your resume=94, does that no=
t
presume that that faculty member then got the grant or did the publicatio=
ns
or work? He is identifying that as an opportunity for the enhancement of
the faculty member in the university rather than something that seems to =
be
something they should be ashamed of.

Tom Blues (English) asked if the proposal were amended to make it clear
that the appropriate administrator had to approve, could that mean that a
request based on =91x=92 considerations could be approved by one administ=
rator,
but a request based on the same considerations presented to another
administrator could be disapproved. The answer was yes.

David Durant said that they now allow candidates in special circumstances
to stop the tenure clock but they cannot do that without prejudice. It
seems that they need to have some statement that will allow them to avoid
penalizing people.

Allan Kaplan (Medicine) said a counterpoint, as a chair it would seem to
him that he would be very reticent to allow this for any reason other tha=
n
someone who was unable to function effectively for a year. It does not
seem to be in the best interest of the department, or the university to
allow someone to take a year off to fatten up a CV and come back and be
judged on six or seven years with an extra year or two. He does not see
chairs abusing this if they are good chairs. If they are not good chairs=
,
they have other problems that should be dealt with in different ways. It
seems to him to allow people with legitimate reasons to opt out of a year
because of a family, medical, or parental situation and allow them to
extend their tenure under those conditions is fair and reasonable and
consistent with what is happening at other universities.

Jim Brennan (Mathematics) said that he agreed that one should take into
consideration a situation such as when someone has a health problem. Thi=
s
is about =93without prejudice=94 however, and is not something that can b=
e
guaranteed because these cases are going across the campus. If that extr=
a
year does not produce something significant, there will be considerable
prejudice.

Bill Fortune (Law) wanted to know whether the proposed effective date
applies to people who are now in the middle or only in the future? The
Chair said that these recommendations go to the President and are
considered and have to be approved and the effective date would depend on
that. Professor Fortune said that if the effective date was at the end o=
f
this academic year that the people who are now in the process would have
the advantage of the proposal, would they not? If not this applies only =
to
the future. The Chair said that his understanding was that people
currently in the system would have access to this opportunity.

Bill Fortune proposed that this proposal when it becomes effective that i=
t
would apply to current faculty. The amendment was seconded. The amendme=
nt
passed in a voice vote.

The Chair stated if they could take the sense of the statement he read in
saying it would be with the agreement of the appropriate administrator th=
ey
could change the wording and clarify that and unless an amendment was
proposed. There was no amendment and the changes would be editorial.

David Adams made the motion to table the proposal, to send it back to the
committee and have it rewritten. The motion was seconded. The motion to
table was defeated in a show of hands; 21 in favor, 30 opposed.

Kaveh Tagavi said that it seemed to him that every person who thinks they
are not going to get tenure will be asking for this, then they will be
upset if they do not get it. They might sue or appeal. If they do not
have a job they will go through a big hardship of not having any income,
trying to do something in eight years that they should have done in seven
years. Then they are faced with being denied tenure even after that. Th=
e
least they could do is not grant this unless it is for family reasons, if
it is requested on the sixth year.

Carol Brock said that if there are no criteria if this is granted then it
does not protect the people it was designed to protect. It will then hav=
e
to come back in several years and they will have to vote to give such
people yet more time.

Lee Meyer (Agriculture) said it seemed they were mixing two sentiments; o=
ne
to provide relief for people in personal or family crisis, and the other =
is
the possibility of extending the tenure clock for one year. Unless they
specify criteria they are going to mix those two things up. They need to
make a decision and then specify criteria.

Tom Blues said that he was worried about the matter of variable criteria.
A person could be treated one way in one college or department and a
similar case differently in another. It seems that then there might inde=
ed
be a case for litigation. The criteria problem could be a real problem f=
or
the institution.

The question was called. The proposal failed in a show of hands; 25 in
favor of, 26 opposed.

ACTION ITEM 3: Proposal to modify the University Senate Rules to include
Discovery Seminars (and a concomitant course) as part of the University
Studies Program.

Proposal
The University Studies Program Committee has approved a proposal by
professor William Freehling, Singletary Distinguished Professor in Arts a=
nd
Sciences, to include the Discovery Seminars (and a concomitant course) as
part of the University Studies Program.

The format is quite simple. If, for example, a Discovery Seminar focuses
on the area of physics, students in that seminar may take any other cours=
e
in physics to satisfy the science requirement in University Studies. If =
a
seminar focuses on a topic in history, students may take any other course
in history to satisfy the humanities requirements. If a seminar focuses =
on
the social sciences, a student may take any course in the social sciences
to satisfy the Social Science requirement in USP. The reason for the
broader scope of the social science seminars is that in contrast to the
humanities and natural science requirement in the USP, where two courses
are required in one discipline, the USP Social Science requirement
stipulates two courses in different disciplines. Each seminar will have =
no
more than 25 students and will be taught by an experienced faculty member.

Background and Rationale:
The Seminars are a new venture at the University to provide a stimulating
academic experience to freshmen in order to engage their interest and set
them on the right path to life-long learning. when University Studies wa=
s
instituted in 1988, Freshman Seminars were listed as one route for
satisfying the humanities component of the general education program.
Because of funding problems, we have not been able to incorporate seminar=
s
until this time. Professor Freehling has experimented with this format f=
or
two years, and his recent success has persuaded the USP Committee that th=
e
seminars (together with an appropriate accompanying course) are an
excellent way to satisfy one of the disciplinary components of University
Studies.

The USP Committee recognizes that this venture departs from the normal
format for satisfying the disciplinary components of the USP. Nonetheles=
s,
because of the focus of the seminars, the small class atmosphere which
characterizes them, and the quality of the faculty teaching them, the
Committee believes that the educational value to freshmen is such as to
warrant this innovation. The most important things we can do for student=
s,
and especially our freshmen, is to engage them in intellectual inquiry in=
a
challenging and attractive fashion. The Discovery Seminars achieve that
goal very effectively, and the USP Committee believes that Dr. Freehling=92=
s
proposal will be a significant step forward in helping our students to
appreciate the purpose of a university education to progress toward a
degree in a timely fashion.

The proposal has been approved by the Senate council and is recommended t=
o
the Senate.

Implementation: Spring Semester, 1998

The Chair recognized Professor Roy Moore for introduction of the item.
Professor Moore reviewed the background and recommended approval on behal=
f
of the Senate Council.

Louis Swift (Dean, Undergraduate Studies) stated he wanted to rise in
support of the motion. This was the type of thing that they hope will
happen in the course of the University=92s academic life. That is to say
several imaginative faculty members who are very interested in
undergraduate education and very much interested in freshmen, who are
trying to do something that they all would agree is the most important
thing that they do; to stimulate students, get them excited about the
academic life, and be concerned about lifelong learning. They have that =
in
this proposal. The Undergraduate Studies Program committee which looked =
at
it and spent a good deal of time talking about it, recognized that it
departs somewhat from the norm of a disciplinary requirement but the
benefits that accrue to the students that are being taught in a class of =
25
students by an outstanding teacher are such that they think that the chan=
ge
is well warranted. He strongly urged support of the motion.

Kaveh Tagavi said it seemed as of now students were not allowed to take t=
wo
courses from the same social sciences area. Under the new proposal,
supposedly students can take both; one seminar and one regular course fro=
m
the same discipline. That is not explained in the rationale. =20
He would like to see it explained or the language changed so students
cannot take two courses in the same area.

Professor Swift said that the nature of the seminars is a little bit
different from the ordinary sequence that they have now where departments
are clearly identified. The seminars can be unique in nature and focus o=
n
a particular issue. In light of that fact, the proposal was written in
this fashion. It may very well be that a seminar taught by a psychology
professor could then be paired with a course in the psychology department.
The nature of the seminars is such that they are not an ordinary psycholo=
gy
courses, they are usually built around a particular theme or a particular
idea and there is a great deal of interaction between the professor and t=
he
student in the development of the theme in the course, so they are
different from the norm. The reason the rules are different in the
humanities and the natural sciences from the social sciences; in the
humanities and natural sciences two courses have to be taken from the sam=
e
discipline, in the social sciences students take two different discipline=
s;
when they got the faculty members together ten years ago to put USP
together the natural scientists and humanist said =93whatever you do, mak=
e
sure that you have two courses in chemistry or two courses in biology or
two courses in literature, do not mix them up=94 the social scientist ca=
me
to them and said =93whatever you do, don=92t make it two courses in psych=
ology
or sociology.=94 You are about to receive a questionnaire being distribu=
ted
to all faculty members asking whether they would like to change that
arrangement. If that is true the committee will go ahead with its work.

James Brennan asked if this was supposed to run like the ProSeminars in t=
he
Honors Program? Dr. Swift said, =93Not quite.=94 The ProSeminars are a
sequence of four courses spanning Western Civilization.

Bill Freehling said these seminars are more research oriented. One of th=
e
purposes is to let research professors interest and excite freshman in th=
e
nature of their disciplines. He is on a task force now which is
considering improving research and graduate education to a top twenty
status, he personally feels they need to connect that with undergraduate
studies. This does that. It asks research professors to teach
undergraduate seminars, particularly to freshman.

James Brennan said that the point of his question was that in order to
teach one of the seminars a proposal must be submitted that is reviewed b=
y
a committee, is that the way this will be run?

Bill Freehling said that there would be a committee that Dean Sands will
appoint and the committee will look at all proposals by the faculty. He
would like not only for them to vote for the proposal today, but also
expand their interest in this program in the future. His dream for the
program is not just to have the College of Arts and Sciences teaching but
also the law school, medical school, business school and the engineering
school. They will all help with this new initiative in freshman educatio=
n.
No professor can ever make this kind of a forum in freshman education
without the help of incredible administrators. Without the support of
people like Richard Greissman, Don Sands, Elisabeth Zinser, and especiall=
y
Lou Swift there is no way this could have been possible.

The proposal passed in an unanimous voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 4 - Proposal to modify the University Senate Rules Section 1 =
-
1.4.2, to eliminate required biennial faculty surveys

Proposal (delete the entire section reproduced below)

1.4.2 IDENTIFYING ISSUES FOR STUDY (US: 2/13/89)
An ad hoc committee of properly qualified professionals shall be appointe=
d
by the Senate Council to survey a random sample of the faculty in the
spring of each even numbered year to identify the most pressing issues
facing the University during the coming year. The Senate Council shall
evaluate the issues and, where appropriate, assign them to standing
committees. Any significant issue not within the jurisdiction of one of
the standing committees shall be referred to an ad hoc committee appointe=
d
by the Senate council. Standing and ad hoc Committees of the Senate shal=
l
have the privilege of presenting reports to that body after review by the
Senate council provided the report has been appropriately circulated in
advance.

In addition to issues generated by this faculty survey, the Senate Counci=
l
may identify other issues for committee study as a result of suggestions =
by
its members or by a student, faculty, or administrator at any time.

Committee members may also decide on issues for study by their own
committees if this work does not interfere with Senate Council assignment=
s.

Background and Rationale
In February, 1997, the Senate Council appointed a Task Force to examine t=
he
utility of Senate Rule 1 - 1.4.2.

The Task Force discussed the issue, meet with faculty across the campus,
and detected little, if any, enthusiasm for a faculty polling effort.

The Senate Council has not conducted a poll since 1987. Since then, the
University Senate has responded to issues from the ten-year accreditation
selfstudy, considered reports from ad hoc committees addressing issues li=
ke
faculty retirement and gender equity, and most recently addressed the
Higher Education Reform Act of 1997. These and other challenges have bee=
n
met through the normal functioning of the Senate=92s standing committees =
and
other ad hoc or special task force committees appointed by the Senate Cou=
ncil.

The Task Force concluded that the Senate would not have been more effecti=
ve
in its operation had faculty polls been conducted in the even-numbered
years over the last decade. The Task Force believes the Senate Council c=
an
accomplish the intent of Rule 1.4.2 by encouraging committee chairs to be
sensitive to issues and responsible in carrying forward their
responsibilities.

The Task Force recommends the repeal of Senate Rule 1 - 1.4.2 in its
entirety. The Senate Council concurs.

Implementation: Immediate

Chairperson Applegate recognized Professor Roy Moore for introduction of
the item. Professor Roy reviewed the background of the item and
recommended approval on behalf of the Senate Council. =20

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

In an update on Senate Committee activities, the Chair said that the
Research Committee had met with Dan Reedy, and is becoming engaged in wha=
t
is happening with the task force that Bill Freehling talked about. The
Finance Committee chaired by Craig Infanger is meeting with Chancellor
Zinser soon to talk about priorities on the Lexington Campus budget. The
Planning and Priorities Committee chaired by Kim Anderson is submitting a
report that will be very timely in looking at what is going to happen wit=
h
distance education and the virtual university. The Senate Council is
meeting with Ed Carter to begin to explore in depth what is being planned
with the Coldstream Farm Development. They are also meeting with the
legislators and the Governor. Post-tenure review legislation is still
prefiled for the first session. We are very lucky that Loys Mather chair=
s
the Council of Senate Faculty Leaders for the state and Merl Hackbart is
the faculty representative; representing all faculty on the Council on
PostSecondary Education. There is a lot of ways in which we are having
input into both the CPE and legislative processes. Most of you are being
very active in giving students and faculty a voice on some very important
issues.

The Chair made one other query given the 25 to 26 vote on interruption of
the tenure clock and the discussion of the need for criteria. Is there a=
ny
interest in going back and looking at that and thinking about more
extensive criteria?

Tom Blues said that the sense of the discussion was that the sticking poi=
nt
was the issue of criteria and it would be well to send it back and then
look again at that issue.

Maria Boosalis said that criteria would be useful especially if there is =
a
family emergency. There should be some uniform criteria, so it is not
arbitrary.

George Blandford (Engineering) said if they are going to look at it, he
would like to see the language cleared up on prior service. Given the fa=
ct
that they just voted on something to negotiate it between the dean. The
Chair said they would find an appropriate committee to look at it.

Bill Freehling said he very much hoped they would keep the proposal alive=
,
because it had many good things in it.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.





Donald E. Witt
Secretary, University Senate