MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, NOVEMBER 11, 1996
The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m.,
Monday, November 11, 1996 in Room 115 of the Nursing Health Sciences
Building.
Professor Jan Schach, Chairperson of the Senate Council,
presided.
Members absent were: Allan Aja, M. Mukhtar*, Gary Anglin,
Michael Bardo, Patricia Birchfield, Thomas Blues*, Darla Botkin,
Fitzgerald Bramwell*, Joseph Burch, Mary Burke*, Lauretta Byars,
Berry Campbell*, Ben Carr, Edward Carter, Scott Coovert, Frederick
Danner, Frederick DeBeer*, Philip DeSimone*, Andrew Dreibel, Richard
Edwards, Robert Farquhar*, William Fortune*, Donald Frazier*,
Richard Furst, Thomas Garrity, Philip Greasley, Ottfried Hahn*,
Issam Harik*, Christine Havice, Robert Houtz*, Betty Huff*, Laura
Keith, Michael Kennedy*, Monica Kern, Craig Koontz, Thomas Lester,
Mandy Lewis*, C. Oran Little, Joyce Logan*, Loys Mather*, A. Lee
Meyer*, David Mohney, Donald Mullineaux*, Santos Murty, David Nash*,
Phyllis Nash, Wolfgang Natter*, Anthony Newberry, James Noll,
Jacqueline Noonan, William OñConnor, Melanie Shay Onkst, Rhoda-Gale
Pollack*, Deborah Powell, Thomas Robinson, Michael Rohmiller,
Avinash Sathaye, Horst Schach, David Shipley, David Stockham, George
Wagner*, Charles Wethington*, Eugene Williams, Lionel Williamson,
Paul Willis, Stephan Wilson*, Phyllis Wise, Craig Wood.
The Chair made the following announcements:
Regarding the selection of chairs to chair Senate
Committees. There was a question at the last meeting as to
non-senators serving as chairs of Senate Standing Committees. The
Senate Rules state, ÊChairs shall be appointed by the Senate
Council, the Chair and at least one half the members of the
committee shall be senators except as otherwise specified.¾ The
exception is in cases where an appropriate individual within the
Senate is not able to be identified, then we have to go outside the
Senate membership for those chair positions, so the rules are
waived. All of the Senate Committee membership, including the
Chairs, are approved by the Senate Council.
For your information, there are 103 elected members of the
Senate, 18 of those are students and 85 are others. There are
somewhere between 13 or 14 exofficio voting members from various
ranks of the Administration, depending on whether it is an even or
odd year. There is one voting member from the emeriti faculty. So
be certain when you come to a meeting and vote you are eligible to
vote. It takes 45 eligible voting members to constitute a quorum.
There was an error on the Senate Council election forms.
Hans Gesund is not in Arts and Sciences. A correction ballot has
gone out. * Absence Explained
The Senate Council met at the last meeting with Merl
Hackbart who is serving this year as a special assistant to the
Governor and is involved very much with the Task Force on Higher
Education. There was a good discussion on issues of concern of the
University of Kentucky and the Task Force. He encourage the Senate
Council to develop a position paper on the role of the University of
Kentucky as the key research institution in the state. Jim
Applegate has written a very good version of that and it will be
forwarded to the Governor.
Chairperson Schach recognized Professor Marcus McEllistrem
to present a resolution on Bud Cochran. Memorial Resolution for
Lewis W. (Bud) Cochran (1915 - 1996)
An extraordinary leader, and one of a small number of men
who transformed the culture of the University of Kentucky, left the
planet on July 11, 1996. Lewis (Bud) Cochran devoted forty-three
years of service to the institution he loved, with a depth of
passion and conviction matched by very few people in the recent
history of the University. He was particularly marked by his
ability to exercise profound and strong leadership without
deliberately seeking to advance his own fortunes or status. He was
propelled into major leadership by his passionate devotion to the
University and Commonwealth, his natural capacity for leadership,
and his vision of major research status for our University.
Bud Cochran was born near Perryville, Kentucky and had his
early education in Boyle, Lincoln, and Casey counties. He earned
his baccalaureate degree from Morehead State University in 1936,
and immediately enrolled as a graduate student in physics here at
the University of Kentucky. Thus he began his career at our
University as a Master of Science candidate and half-time
instructor. He achieved the M. S. degree two years later, at age
23. He then taught for a few years each at Morehead State and at
Cumberland College, before entering the Army during World War II.
He became an officer, and saw service in the Pacific, particularly
in Japan during the last stages of occupation of that country.
Prof. Louis A. Pardue had decided to build an electrostatic
accelerator at our University, with construction commencing in 1939;
this innovative accelerator development work had helped attract Bud
here for his M. S. degree. But both for Bud and the faculty, the
war terminated their efforts. The accelerator effort did continue
during the war, but under government agency management, connected
with the nuclear powered aircraft attempts of the mid-1940s. After
the war Bud Cochran returned to UK as an Assistant Professor and a
candidate for the PhD degree. He joined a new group of faculty
recruited to complete the accelerator and begin a nuclear physics
research program. He earned his doctoral degree under the joint
tutelage of Profs. T. Marshall Hahn, Jr. and Bernard Kern in 1952.
Bernard retired from our Physics and Astronomy Department several
years ago. Marshall Hahn went on to become President of Virginia
Polytechnic University and eventually CEO of Georgia Pacific. Lewis
Cochran had returned to UK to stay for the rest of his career.
Lewis Cochran was in the late 1940s a slender, intense young
man with enormous optimism and confidence in the future of the
University of Kentucky. He was such a dynamic, forward looking
young professor that five years after earning the PhD he was a full
professor, and served as Chairman of the Physics Department during
1959. He was appointed Associate Dean of the Graduate School in
1963, working with the famous Albert D. Kirwan, then Graduate Dean.
BUD'S NATURAL CAPACITY FOR LEADERSHIP ACCOUNTED FOR HIS RAPID
development as an administrator and leader within the University.
Bud served as Dean of the Graduate School for three years, from 1967
to 1970. At that point he was appointed Vice President for Academic
Affairs, a post he held until his retirement from the University in
1981.
In the mid-1950s this University was noted for its many
strong programs in undergraduate education, but had fewer graduate
programs which could be accounted as strong. One leading physics
professor of that time told me that research and scholarship were
activities for graduate students; after one had the PhD degree,
teaching was all that really mattered. That single-minded focus on
teaching was very strong in much of the University during that
period. Bud and a few other leaders set out to transform the entire
University into a major research as well as teaching institution.
His efforts, and those of others he inspired, bore particular fruit
when the late John Oswald was appointed President of the University
in 1963. President Oswald understood, endorsed, and implemented the
structural reforms worked out by Bud Cochran and his colleagues
during several earlier years. Bud's position of leadership six
years later was so strong that it seemed only logical that he should
be appointed Vice President.
Lewis Cochran had a very strong image of the experience
required of the top officer of the University. He once told me that
although he could serve well as Vice President, he thought that it
was probably inappropriate for him to aspire to the Presidency,
since his total academic experience had been limited to Kentucky.
He thought that the demands for leadership in that time period
required one with broader educational experience. Thus he never
expected to succeed to the Presidency. Bud is, however, the only
senior, hands-on academic officer other than the President to serve
as leader of all three sectors of the University. Bud managed the
leadership of the office of Vice President for Academic Affairs,
overseeing all sectors of the University, with a very modest staff
and budget. He succeeded partly because of his prodigious memory
for details, and his capacity to read and understand documents from
all parts of the University. Many a faculty member appeared before
him to plead a cause, planning to explain to Vice President Cochran
the context of his proposal, only to have Bud explain aspects,
connections and consequences that the faculty member had not
realized were important. He would then almost always find a way to
encourage his faculty members, and enable them to implement their
dreams for the University. After he retired his post was retired.
Major university academic responsibilities were divided amongst the
three sector chancellors.
Lewis Cochran throughout his leadership engineered many
developments which helped the University grow rapidly in stature,
including, for example, the area system of review of
promotion-proposals which enabled different parts of the University
to monitor the rate and quality of growth of each other's programs.
Two particular accomplishments were of major importance to Physics
and Chemistry. The then new building for the two departments was
designed largely by Cochran. He had managed a basic structural
design modeled largely on a similar building at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, which enabled large reductions in bids from contractors,
since the steel and concrete needs could be accurately estimated.
Much of the interior design and layout, particularly for the Physics
Department, was also completed almost single-handedly by Lewis
Cochran. His efforts enabled development of the building for about
$5.5 million, even then a very low figure for a 247,000 square foot
building. A second major accomplishment affecting the future of the
Physics Department was the collection of funds from a variety of
sources to purchase a major accelerator, at a cost of about
$500,000. With ventures like that, and other similar ones, Bud
encouraged the practice of making significant investments which
would advance the University's ability to attain research
achievements and the associated research funding.
The transformation of the University into a major research
institution was effected largely by recruiting faculty of the
highest quality possible, and with an intense desire to develop
research and scholarship programs. This recruiting was carried out
especially throughout the 1960s and 1970s; then Bud worked to
provide the administrative framework which would encourage them to
strive for maximum productivity with quality. I remember Bud
complaining to me during the late 1960s and early 1970s, which was a
time of unrest throughout American academia, that the powerful
scholarly results he had hoped for were too long in coming. Why
aren't superb results coming faster, he would complain. He used to
walk through laboratories, after helping them achieve as much
finding and personnel support as he could encourage, and say 'I want
to hear some loud Eurekas!'
His passion to bring the University into excellence in the
modern world was extraordinary and unflagging throughout his career.
Bud's passing from our planet is not to be mourned or lamented, but
he is to be remembered for his eminently successful efforts to
advance the cause of the University of Kentucky.
Madam Chairman, since I am not a member of this body, I ask
that a motion be offered to spread this resolution upon the minutes
of the University Senate, and to forward copies to members of Lewis
Cochran's immediate family.
The Chair asked the Senate to rise for a moment of silence.
Chairperson Schach then introduced Dean Dan Reedy to speak
on the State of Graduate Education. Dean Reedy has been dean of the
Graduate School since 1988, entering that position as former Chair
of the Spanish Department. We have all been fortunate to enjoy the
leadership of Dean Reedy. There are few individuals on this campus
who is more universally respected by all faculty and staff. He is
truly an academic administrator in the finest sense of that
tradition.
Dean Reedy made the following remarks: The State of
Graduate Education at the University of Kentucky Permit me to begin
these remarks by expressing my sincere thanks to Dr. Jan Schach and
the Senate Council for their invitation to comment on the State of
Graduate Education at the University of Kentucky. This is an
appropriate time, I think, to look at what our academic units have
accomplished, to assess where we are in our progress toward our
institutional goals, to look at the priorities which should guide
our decision making for the future, and to dream about where we
would like to be as a Research I doctoral granting university at
some point in the foreseeable future. For those of you who like
visual effects, you will find hard copies of the data to which I
refer on the tables at the back of the room as you depart. During
the past year President Wethington's Task Force on Graduate
Education prepared an excellent report which has been widely
circulated among the faculty and administrative ranks. The Graduate
Education Task Force report should serve as a kind of blueprint for
the improvement of graduate education at UK during the remainder of
this decade and into the 21st century. The Graduate School itself
was reviewed approximately 2 1/2 years ago, and a Search Committee
has been appointed and has begun its activities to advise on the
appointment of a new graduate dean. Strategic Plan/Strategic
Indicators: As part of its institutional Strategic Plan, the
University set forth measures of anticipated achievement for
graduate education. These Strategic Indicators have not been met in
their entirety, but substantial progress has been achieved in most
of them..
* Graduate Enrollment in Fall 1996 was 5240, estimated to be
unchanged from Fall 1995, and short of the strategic indicator of
5,500.
* 236 doctoral degrees were awarded in 1995-96, surpassing
the strategic indicator of 230 for the first time.
* The combined total of master's, specialist, and doctoral
degrees awarded reached 1296 in 1995-96, exceeding the strategic
indicator of 1200.
* In Fall 1996 the number of postdoctoral appointments rose
to a high of 145, exceeding the strategic indicator of 130.
* Enrollment of Black Kentucky Resident graduate students
(181) surpassed the EEO Strategic Indicator of 5.2%. Enrollment At
UK and throughout the Nation, the past decade in higher education
has been marked by continuing enrollment growth in graduate
education; however, that pattern of substantial growth each year has
flattened out considerably as we approach the end of the century.
Nationally, there were 1,192,973 graduate students enrolled at all
U.S. universities in Fall 1994, an average increase of 2.0% per
annum over the Fall 1986 semester. Increases in graduate enrollment
at UK have been much higher than the national average, as they have
been generally at most major institutions in the southern region.
Annual applications for admission at UK have been at the 8,000 mark
or above since 1990-91. In Fall 1987, for example, UK enrollment
stood at 3,896; the Fall 1996 enrollment figure of 5,240 marks an
increase of 25.6% over the intervening decade. Enrollment during
the past two years appears to be stabilized at approximately 5,250,
plus or minus, for the present. In the university context, graduate
students represented 17.4% of total university enrollments in Fall
1987; ten years later, they constitute 21.5% of enrollment. Total
number of graduate students enrolled during 1995-96 (fall, spring,
summer terms) numbered 6,738. UK's graduate student body in Fall
1996 is composed of 34.2% doctoral students; the remaining 65.8% are
in master's, specialist, or non-degree studies. The percentage of
women and men enrolled in Fall 1996 stands at 54.7% women; 45.3%
men. Were we to examine the ratios of enrollment in master's vs
doctoral programs, however, we would see that during academic year
1995-96 there were 1,144 male doctoral candidates to 890 females; at
the master's level women candidates numbered 1,844, whereas men
totaled fewer at 1,127. Enrollment of African Americans graduate
students increased by 15% in the Fall 1996 semester. Degree
Productivity: Although graduate student enrollees constitute only
21.5% of the student body, the 1,269 graduate degrees awarded during
1995-96 represent 27.4% of all baccalaureate, professional, and
graduate degrees granted by UK during the past year. Arts and
Sciences awarded 66 doctorates-- the largest number of any single
college; Social Work produced the largest number of master's degrees
at 192. Enrollment Management: As we noted above, graduate student
enrollment seems to have reached a plateau for the time being. If
these numbers are to increase in the future, it will largely be the
product of extending our graduate offerings to clients outside
Fayette and contiguous counties. New programs at the master's level
will account for some increases as will new doctoral programs;
however, the number of graduate students enrolled in some of our
degree programs has the potential to exceed good judgment. My point
is that we need to make sure that the numbers of graduate students
in a given graduate program do not exceed a reasonable ratio to the
number of qualified graduate faculty that we have to serve them.
Doctoral programs in which some graduate faculty members may have as
many as 12 or even 15 doctoral mentees have clearly exceeded that
qualitative norm. Most doctoral programs would agree, I think, that
a ratio of 3 to 5 students per graduate faculty member can ensure
quality support and guidance from the mentor. Master's programs in
which the number of master's students exceeds a ratio of 20: 1, i.e.
of students to faculty, jeopardize the effectiveness of the program.
The ratio should be decidedly less in programs requiring a master's
thesis and individual thesis guidance. In most graduate program
areas where full-time enrollment is the norm, the availability of
financial support from assistantships often determines the size of
the graduate student body; other limitations may include the
availability of laboratories or of placement sites for practicum
experiences, for example. The University needs to conduct a
self-examination aimed at determining the optimum size of its
graduate enrollment. A number of questions need to be raised in this
determination: What is the appropriate optimum size of enrollment in
each graduate program area? What are the most desirable ratios of
graduate faculty to numbers of graduate students? Is the resource
base sufficient to provide financial support for students who need
to be enrolled full-time? Are faculty members involved in the
graduate program research active? Are student applicants highly
qualified for graduate study? What level of degree productivity
should the program consider in light of market demand? Support of
Graduate Students Financial support for graduate students at the
University of Kentucky is generally available in the form of
Graduate Teaching Assistantships, Research Assistantships,
Administrative or Service Assistantships, and Fellowships. In the
Fall 1996 Semester, there are 775 TAs, 693 RAs, 54
Administrative/Service Assistants, and 343 fellowship awards, While
there is some overlap in awardees, i.e. persons who may hold half of
a Taship and half of a fellowship, a total of 1814 are among those
reported to the Graduate School. This represents approximately 34.6%
of the graduate students who are receiving some type of financial
support. From time to time, criticism is voiced that the University
relies too heavily on teaching assistants in its lower-level
classes. I for one want to emphasize that "TA" is not a
"four-letter" word, nor is their utilization in the instructional
workforce prompted by a need for "cheap labor". The training of
graduate students for academic positions elsewhere is one of the
central functions of this or most other major research universities.
We are highly selective of the persons we hire as Teaching
Assistants; they are, in the main, highly knowledgeable in their
field or discipline, well-trained, and dedicated in their commitment
to their classes and students. This type of training is a
fundamental part of what land-grant universities are about. We
should offer no apology for using graduate teaching assistants--in
fact, we should point out that most of them have the educational
attainment of the master's before they undertake sole classroom
responsibilities. Some educational institutions which tout
themselves as using only full-time faculty and no teaching
assistants fail to point out the percentage of their faculty who do
not hold the doctorate in their field and whose educational level
may be considerably less than that of UK's graduate assistants, not
to mention the currency of the base of knowledge. Do we want nurses,
dentists, or medical doctors who have not had practical training in
the health care environment? Then why would we want to produce
future academics who have had no teaching experience? We should
pause to note that a competitive grant from the Pew Charitable
Trusts under the auspices of the American Association of Colleges
and Universities and the Council of Graduate Schools has made
possible seminars for UK graduate students in the field of college
teaching. Designed to enhance the preparation of our degree
recipients for the marketplace, these seminars have now been
institutionalized and are being offered by the Center on Teaching
and Learning in collaboration, in many cases, with companion courses
offered by the student's disciplinary department or college. The
near doubling of research funding at UK from external grants and
contracts during the past 8 years has also produced a parallel
increase in the number of Research Assistants. Decisions in
Washington, D.C., may have a major impact on both our research
funding and research assistant funding in the future, depending on
the availability of such funds and our faculty's competitiveness in
winning them for the University of Kentucky. Recommendations
contained in the Graduate Education Task Force report, were they to
be implemented, will go far toward keeping the University of
Kentucky competitive with other universities for the best and the
brightest of potential graduate students. The group's number 1
priority is to fund in-state tuition scholarships for graduate
research assistants as it currently is provided for teaching
assistants and fellowship recipients. The committee also recommended
that the University determine the feasibility of implementing a plan
whereby graduate students may be permitted to purchase the same
health benefits as are offered to faculty and staff. Such programs
of benefits for graduate assistants, in particular, are gaining wide
acceptance at other universities in the U.S. In recent years, it
has become increasingly apparent that the University's academic-year
fellowships are not sufficient in either stipend level or duration
of award to be competitive nationally. The success of UK's Quality
Achievement Awards and its multi-year Lyman T. Johnson initiatives
point to the need for the University to seek ways to offer a
multi-year academic fellowship program which is nationally
competitive. This will require fellowship awards of at least 3 years
duration for doctoral student, 2 for master's, at levels comparable
to those of NSF fellowships, i.e. $15,000, plus tuition and fees,
per year. On a limited basis, this approach can be implemented in
the next biennium by reformulating the current academic-year
graduate fellowship program, utilizing the current base of
resources, and by seeking development funds from alumni and other
major donors to provide on-going support of a highly competitive
graduate fellowship program. Diversity: One of the areas which the
University needs to continue to give highest priority is the
diversity of the graduate student body, as well as that of the
university's faculty and staff. Affirmative action plans in many
parts of the country have come under attack through the courts and
other venues. Most recently, voter approval of Proposition 209 in
California has focused public attention on affirmative action and
equal opportunity plans. How does all this affect UK? Will these
decisions ultimately have an impact on UK's attempts to develop a
more diversified constituency of students, staff, and faculty? At
the graduate level, approximately 4.5% of our current students are
African American. In the Fall of 1990, only 89 African Americans
were enrolled in UK's Graduate School, compared to the 235
unofficially enrolled in the Fall 1996 semester. The total of 181
Kentucky resident African Americans surpasses for the first time the
Institution's Strategic Indicator of 5.2% representation. Can we be
satisfied with meeting this minimum level of expectation? I hope
not! In the face of continuing opposition to programs whose aim is
the diversification of our student population, the University's
Lyman T. Johnson fellowship program and the Commonwealth Incentive
Awards for Kentucky minorities and women in underrepresented areas
of study have produced beneficial results. However, the University's
commitment to diversity must continue to be emphasized at all
levels. Thus, it is likely that the University will want to reorient
some of its current initiatives and develop new approaches in order
to continue to promote energetically a diversified university.
Graduate Programs During the past 10 years, the University has
continued to develop and implement new graduate programs designed to
meet the needs of the Commonwealth. Since 1989, new master's
programs include the Master of Health Administration, the Master of
Mining Engineering, the M.S. in Physical Therapy, and the M.S. in
Manufacturing Systems. Most recently two additional master's degree
programs were approved by the Council on Higher Education: the
Master of Historic Preservation and the Master of Engineering for
extended-campus delivery. Degree development at the doctoral level
has been much slower paced: the Ph.D. in Nutritional Sciences was
approved and implemented in 1989; a Ph.D. proposal in Family Studies
remains under consideration; and the Ph.D. in Gerontology was
approved by the Council on Higher Education in July of 1996. If
current trends hold into the future, new degree program development
will likely be in the professional-master's programs and in
interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary areas at the doctoral level.
The doctoral program in Gerontology, for example, draws on the
well-established research base of the Sanders-Brown Center on Aging.
UK's doctorate is the fourth in the field of gerontology nationally
and is the first to focus on clinical specializations as well as on
policy issues as they relate to research on aging. In many respects,
UK is better positioned than many first-echelon institutions in
terms of capitalizing on its multidisciplinary research potential. A
comparable program is being developed in the field of
Bio-pharmaceutical Engineering, combining the research activities of
faculty in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chemical Engineering, and
Chemistry. Were this doctoral program to be implemented in the next
year or two, it will become the first of its kind in the nation and
a training program for academic researchers as well as for the
private sector. A doctoral program in Social Work will soon be
under consideration by the Council on Higher Education. This
proposed program will be unique to the Commonwealth in that it is
the first submitted as a joint degree from both the University of
Kentucky and the University of Louisville. Proposed as a single
degree program, both UK and UL will provide joint administrative and
academic oversight. Students accepted into the program will be able
to designate one of the two universities as their prime institution,
but they will benefit from course offerings at both universities. In
this joint endeavor, UK and UL will be able to combine their faculty
resources and maximize their programmatic offerings and
specializations for the benefit of their students. Doctoral Quality
Recent public remarks by Murray State University's President imply,
perhaps, that UK's doctoral programs are not serving the
Commonwealth, and he also infers that according to last year's
National Research Council's evaluation of Research Doctoral Programs
in the U.S., UK is not as competitive as we should be. It goes
without saying that UK expects its doctoral programs to be
competitive nationally with those of other major land-grant,
Research I universities; however, we are mindful that we are a
"state" institution of higher education and that our programs are
attuned to meeting the State's needs. For example, a quick review of
faculty listings of the regional universities and the University of
Louisville reveals a total of 206 faculty members who received their
doctorate from UK. These figures do not include staff persons or
other administrative personnel who do not hold faculty rank. The
Graduate School's data on the impact of UK's doctoral recipients on
the Commonwealth during the past 4 years show that significant
numbers of UK doctoral recipients take academic or administrative
positions in all kinds of educational environments: from
Kindergarten to secondary positions, from Lindsay Wilson to Berea
College, from Lexington Community College to the University of
Louisville. Other doctoral recipients returned to or took positions
within Kentucky in the private sector (business and industry), in
federal, state, and municipal agencies, and in self-employed
situations. UK's doctoral graduates have also remained highly
competitive for postdoctoral positions and for academic or research
positions throughout the nation and abroad. Had Murray State's
President chosen to do so, he could have pointed out on the basis of
the NRC data that UK's doctoral programs have remained very
competitive nationally, despite the budgetary constraints which the
University has encountered in recent years. If one takes into
account the total number of doctoral programs nationally in a given
field, rather than using the number of those which chose to be
evaluated as the base of the NRC study, UK's status is quite
competitive. Four of its doctoral programs stand in the upper 25%;
fifteen rank above the median, i.e. in the 26th to 49th percentile;
and only six fall below the median but not below the sixth decile.
The fact that our university's doctoral activities in such
multidisciplinary fields as toxicology, molecular and cellular
biology, and ecology provide us with our highest national rankings
should be a strong indicator that UK has utilized its research and
faculty resources well to make us competitive in areas of new
initiatives in graduate education. Extended-Campus Graduate
Programs Most of you are aware that UK, like other major state
universities, has a long history of providing courses and programs
at off-campus sites. In the mid-1970's UK began joint doctoral
activities in Education with four of the state's regional
universities and with the University of Louisville. In 1977, the
Council on Higher Education approved the establishment of the first
Graduate Center in the state whereby UK entered into an agreement to
provide graduate courses and degree programming at NKU. During
1989-90, the Graduate School established a task force to survey
unmet graduate education needs across the Commonwealth and to
determine how best UK could expand its efforts to meet those needs.
With funding from the University for technology, instruction, and
support services in 1990, extended-campus graduate sites were
established at Paducah and Owensboro, to be followed the next year
by sites at Ashland and Hazard. Through this initiative, more than
100 doctoral students have enrolled in Ed.D. programs offered by the
Departments of Administration and Supervision and Educational Policy
Studies and Evaluation. The first 7 doctoral degree
recipients--public school administrators, community college faculty
members, others--received their degrees in 1996. Inter-active video
technologies connect UK at the sites mentioned above and at the
UK/NKU Graduate Center. T-1 connections to Southeast Community
College, Somerset, Elisabethtown, and Henderson have expanded this
network which should be completed to each of UK's community colleges
within the next two years. On-site instruction and satellite
transmission of other courses have made possible the delivery of
degree programs at the Master's level in Engineering, Social Work,
Special Education, Nursing, Physical Therapy, Mining Engineering,
Library and Information Science, and other fields of graduate study.
Presently, more than 420 graduate students are enrolled in extended
campus graduate courses around the Commonwealth, and many of them
will ultimately be recipients of graduate degrees from UK. While
the extended-university concept remains suspect and questionable for
some of us, we must note that the University of Kentucky has been a
leader in planning and implementing the kinds of extended-campus or
distance-learning programs which other major universities are only
now initiating. The idea of a "virtual" university is not a new
concept to UK in terms of the innovative uses of instructional
technology to take graduate education to place-bound clients. If we
are to be the major graduate education, doctoral granting university
in the Commonwealth, we have an obligation to provide that
leadership and to ensure that the quality of that undertaking is no
less than what it is in Lexington on the UK central campus. An
increasing number of our professional graduate programs,
particularly in health-related areas and at the master's level, will
be in high demand around the Commonwealth. We must be prepared to
see that these needs are met within the limitations of our faculty
and financial resources. Achieving Nationally Competitive Standing:
As the University moves toward revisions in its Strategic Plan
during 1997, it should look carefully at the recommendations of the
Graduate Education Task Force which has dealt specifically with
issues relating to the quality of graduate education at the
University of Kentucky. Many of the ingredients for high quality
graduate education are in place at UK:
* Quality of graduate students. The quality of graduate
students enrolled at UK depends on the standards we set for
ourselves academically in the admissions and degree certification
processes, on our ability to recruit effectively at nationally
competitive levels, on the competitive level of our stipends for
assistantships and fellowships, and on the reputation of our degree
programs
* Quality of our graduate faculty. UK does a great job of
attracting outstanding faculty members at the junior level; were it
possible to create endowed chairs or professorships to retain or to
hire senior scholars in strategic areas, it would have a decided
impact on our reputational standing.
* Identification of priority areas in research and graduate
education. The University has endeavored to maintain uniformly high
quality research and graduate education programs to serve the
Commonwealth despite the realities of resource restrictions in
recent years. The recent National Research Council report on
doctoral education, and even the remarks by President Kern
Alexander, point to the fact that the University is competitive in
many areas of graduate education; in some, in fact, it is on the
brink of achieving national and international recognition. When the
NRC report appeared last year, one of our UK Public Relations called
to ask how many of our doctoral programs ranked in the top 10
nationally. I answered the "sports-minded" query with a response
which suggested that we were playing in a good league (Carnegie
Research I, Doctoral Granting Institutions) and that we were
competing respectably in the league (some programs near the top, a
lot of them grouped around the middle, and none of them at the
bottom). If we do not have the resources to move all of our
programs into that top tier of competitors, are the University's
academic administrators and faculty leaders prepared to identify key
areas of endeavor in which the University can and will maximize the
use of its resources to achieve and sustain high academic and
research distinction? Such decisions may mean preferential treatment
in terms of the distribution of the University's resources, but they
would represent a determination by the University to achieve and
sustain high distinction in select fields of research and graduate
study. Postscript: In 1965, the University of Kentucky began the
celebration of its second-century by assessing what kind of
university it had been and what kind of institution it wanted to
become. One of the major outcomes of those deliberations was the
development of a concept of shared governance within the
University--a concept that envisioned faculty and administrators as
partners in the academic enterprise. My visits on many other
university campuses across the nation and my conversations with
colleagues at other institutions have long lead me to believe that
UK's decisions in the 1960s and early 1970s were crucial to the
continuing mutual esteem enjoyed by faculty, staff, and
administration. Many universities across the country are envisioned
more and more as "big business" enterprises. Presidents or
chancellors are CEOs; deans and department chairs are middle
management; faculty are the production-line workers; and students
are the product which must be produced on schedule if company quotas
are to be met. It is still within our power, of course, to maintain
an academic, collegial environment in which administrators, faculty,
staff, and students all "share" in making the place work better, in
improving the quality of our mutually beneficial learning
experiences, in identifying and resolving the problems which keep us
from being as effective as we might. UK has a long tradition of
"shared governance". If we continue to value that tradition, then we
need to make sure that we participate in the process through
departmental committees, college assignments, participation in
university-wide task forces, membership in the University Senate,
and a host of other service activities that we often consider
intrusions. If we fail to participate, then the decisions will be
made for us. In the best of all environments, they may be the
decisions that we would likely have made ourselves. But what if they
are not?
Dean Reedy was given a round of applause.
Chairperson Schach asked for a waiver of the ten day
circulation rule for the College of Dentistry Reorganization
Proposal. ACTION ITEM 1: College of Dentistry Reorganization
Proposal Chancellor James Holsinger has forwarded to the Senate
Council the following Proposal for the Reorganization of the College
of Dentistry which consolidates the two departments currently
existing into one and appoints the Dean as Chair of the remaining
department. Functionally there will be two groups charged with
either day to day operation of programs or with faculty issues, thus
maintaining the matrix under which the College has functioned for
the past several years. The first group, the College Council, will
be composed of individuals charged with conducting those programs
deemed necessary to fulfill the College mission. This group will be
responsible for College planning and routine operation. The other
group, the Council of Division Chiefs, will be responsible for
faculty matters including recruitment, development, evaluation, and
recommendations for merit increases and promotion and tenure.
Background: The Senate Council has voted unanimously to recommend
against the proposal and concurs with the Senate Committee on
Academic Organization and Structure that the lack of support of the
College faculty and the distrust between the administration and the
faculty resulting from the proposal make it difficult for a
one-department structure to function positively at this time. The
Senate Council shares the concern that current Governing and
Administrative Regulations do not sufficiently address the division
as an educational unit. Finally, the Senate Council does not find
any compelling evidence to support the argument that such a
restructuring would result in significant cost savings and has
advised President Wethington and Chancellor Holsinger to withdraw
the proposal. Attached you will find a chronology of the proposal
as it has proceeded through the review process. US Agenda Item:
11.11.96 CHRONOLOGY OF COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL
January 1994 Proposal for reorganization into one-department
structure developed by Dean Nash. December 1994 Department of Oral
Health Practice Section Leaders discuss proposal. February 1994 A
copy of the elements of the proposal distributed to all Dentistry
faculty with a request for letters of support or non-support for
inclusion with formal request for approval. January 3, 1995 College
of Dentistry Council meets to discuss positive and negatives of Nash
proposal. January 17, 1995 College of Dentistry Council meets to
discuss positive and negatives of Nash proposal. Two alternative
plans are presented with no action taken. January 18, 1995 College
of Dentistry faculty meet to discuss proposal. No minutes kept and
no votes taken. February 1995 Dean Nash presents proposal to the
College. April 1995 Dean Nash forwards proposal to President
Wethington. June 1995 Academic Council for the Medical Center
unanimously approves proposal. June 1995 Proposal for
reorganization brought to the Senate Council. August 1995 Proposal
forwarded to Senate Committee on Academic Organization and Structure
for review and recommendation. Committee meets with Dean Nash and
two faculty groups representing support and opposition.
Approximately 35 Dentistry faculty communicate with Griffith along
with letters supporting the proposal and a petition opposing it. 28
faculty send individual letters to the Committee supporting the
reorganization and 27 faculty sign a petition opposing. November
1995 Senate Committee on Academic Organization and Structure
recommends that no action be taken on the proposal at this time and
that it be sent back to the College for clearer articulation of the
duties of division chiefs, mechanisms for appointment and removal of
chiefs, lines of authority, system of checks and balances, etc.
Senate Committee also recommends sufficient effort be made to
achieve a more unified faculty, to reestablish an atmosphere of
trust, and that on-campus mediation services be consulted.
November, 1995 The Senate Council votes unanimously to recommend
against proposal and urges the parties involved to adopt the
recommendations of the Senate Committee on Academic Organization and
Structure. June 1996 Chancellor Holsinger appoints a bipartisan Ad
Hoc Reorganization Committee to develop a one- department
reorganizational strategy that responds to the Senate Committee on
Academic Organization and Structures recommendations. The Ad Hoc
Committee reaches consensus on an amended proposal which is
forwarded to the Dentistry faculty in the form of a sealed ballot
vote. Amended proposal is rejected by a 28 to 24 vote. The Ad Hoc
Committee recommends against the amended proposal. August 1996
Amended proposal forwarded to the Senate Council by Chancellor
Holsinger. October 1996 The Senate Committee on Academic
Organization and Structure, chaired by Professor Bill Griffith,
completes evaluation of the amended proposal and recommends against.
October 1996 The Senate Council votes unanimously to recommend
against the proposal. The Senate Council concurs with the Senate
Committee on Academic Organization and Structure that the amended
proposal lacks the support of the College faculty and the distrust
between the administration and the faculty resulting from the
proposal make it difficult for a one-department structure to
function positively at this time. The Senate Council shares concern
that current Governing and Administrative Regulations do not
sufficiently address the division as an educational unit. The Senate
Council does not find any compelling evidence to support the claim
that such a restructuring would result in significant cost savings.
Senate Council Chair Schach recommends to President Wethington and
Chancellor Holsinger that the proposal be withdrawn. November 1996
Dentistry reorganization proposal brought to the Senate floor. US
Agenda Item: Dentistry, 11.11.96
The Chair recognized Professor Jim Applegate, Chair-elect of
the Senate Council to introduce the item.
Professor Applegate reviewed the background of the proposal
and stated the Senate Council had voted unanimously to recommend
against the proposal and concurs with the Senate Committee on
Academic Organization and Structure that the lack of support of the
faculty and distrust between the administration and faculty as a
result of the proposal make it difficult for a one department
structure to function at this time. It is being brought before the
Senate for discussion.
Chairperson Schach recognized Dr. Tom Lillich and Dr. Tom
Mullaney from the College of Dentistry who served as co-chairs of
the colleges Ad Hoc Committee on Reorganization to present the
proposal and some of the committees actions. Also Bill Griffith,
Chair of the Senate Committee on Organization and Structure,
presented the actions of that committee.
Dr. Lillich made the following remarks:
I am the Chair of the Department of Oral Health Science, one
of two College of Dentistry departments in 1989 when the college was
reorganized. At that time, the College went from eleven to two
departments. I have been chair since 1989 and Associate Dean since
1994. I think the proposal is a good idea.
Everyone received as part of the agenda for this meeting a
list of events that occurred beginning November 1995. I would like
to fill in a gap November 1995 and June 1996 as the College of
Dentistry responded to issues raised by the Senate Committee on
Academic Organization and Structure. There was a series of debates
and discussions held in the Fall of 1995 that resulted in a
recommendation from the Academic Organization and Structure
Committee. That precipitated a meeting with Chancellor Holsinger
and the College of Dentistry faculty in early January of 1996. Out
of that meeting came a request by Chancellor Holsinger for Dr.
Mullaney and myself as the two chairs to convene an Ad Hoc Committee
to respond to the issues raised by the Committee on Academic
Organization and Structure.
In a January 9, 1996 memo to Dr. Mullaney and myself,
Chancellor Holsinger charged this committee to clarify the College
of Dentistry's proposal by describing; 1) division structure within
the department, 2) division chief responsibilities, 3) procedures
for appointment and removal of division chiefs, and 4) a system of
checks and balances. All these issues had been raised in the
Academic Organization and Structure Committee report. He expected
the committee to do this using a process that would give all
interested faculty an opportunity to be heard. He also advised that
the recommendations must be consistent with University Governing and
Administrative Regulations.
Dr. Mullaney and I then constituted an eight member
committee consisting of individuals representing both sides of the
issues. From mid January until mid May 1996, we held a series of
meetings. We reviewed the University Administrative and Governing
Regulations. We had discussions with Juanita Fleming and Gay Elste,
the Medical Center Legal Counsel. We reviewed material from the
Colleges of Nursing and Pharmacy which have single department
structures. We held several open faculty meetings including one
with a representative from the College of Pharmacy. After reviewing
and analyzing this information, we developed a proposal and
submitted it to the college faculty for a vote in late May 1996.
The proposal was as follows: The College of Dentistry will be
organized as a single department with the Dean as Chair.
Functionally there will be two groups charged with either day to day
operation of programs or with faculty issues thus maintaining the
matrix under which the College has functioned for the past several
year. (The matrix structure was something that was implemented with
Senate approval in 1988.) The first group, the College Council will
be composed of individuals charged with conducting those programs
deemed necessary to fulfill the College mission. This group will be
responsible for college planning and routine operations. The other
group, the Council of Division Chiefs will be responsible for
faculty matters including recruitment, development, evaluation, and
recommendations for merit increases and promotion and tenure. The
Division Chief job description is appended.
The Committee called for a faculty meeting on Wednesday,
June 16, 1996 to discuss the proposal and to initiate a vote by
secret ballot.
Dr. Tom Mullaney made the following remarks:
I am the Chair of Oral Health Practice which is the other
department. It consists of about 41 full-time and 28 part-time
faculty. Before that I was chair of one of the smaller units when
there were 11 departments. I was chair of Endodontics for about 25
years.
As Tom Lillich said, we went through a rather prolonged
process in order to do justice to the charge we as a committee had
from the Chancellor. I will review the report to Dr. Holsinger.
Quotes from the report to the Chancellor of June 18, 1996:
ÊIn order to meet our charge to our committee of January 9,
1996, we have met numerous times over the last several months.¾ e
finally arrived at a consensus on a structure acceptable to our
committee that we submitted to the faculty for a straw vote to see
if there was a consensus of support or nonsupport for the proposal.
The vote was held on a proposal that the College be reorganized as a
single department with the Dean as Chair and with two councils that
would be advisor to the Dean, a College Council and Council of
Division Chiefs. The vote was held by secret ballot on June 11,
1996. Fifty-three out of fifty-five eligible faculty cast ballots.
The proposal was voted down with 28 against and 25 for, that
included the Dean's vote. ÊIt is obvious to the committee and to
our College that there is no consensus on this issue of a single
department. This vote confirms the objections to the prior proposal
for a single department which was unanimously rejected by the
University Senate Council on November 21, 1995 for the same reason.
We, as a committee, have exercised our charge as best we could
considering we had great difficulty in reaching a consensus on an
organizational proposal that would meet your charge. Our committee
reached consensus, submitted the proposal to the faculty, and it was
rejected. It is our opinion that a single department structure does
not have the support of the faculty necessary to implement such a
structure.¾
The members of the committee were Tom Lillich and I, Roland
Duell, Don Falace, Jerry Ferretti, John Kemper, Bob Marciani, and
Dean White who represented a bipartisan group who were evenly split
in opposition.
There are a couple of items that I would like to clear up on
the outline sent to the University Senate. The date December 1994,
the second item on the list should be January 24, 1995 - Department
of Oral Health Practice section leaders discussed proposal. Oral
Health Practice is divided into seven sections; Endodontics, Oral
Surgery, Orthodontics, Pediatric Dentistry, Periodontics,
Prosthodontics, and Restorative Dentistry. We had regular meetings,
twice a month, with the section leaders and discussed various
things. I will read you a comment from the discussion from that
particular meeting. This is before the first time it went through
the Organization and Structure Committee on January 24, 1996. Item
5 states Êa continuing discussion of the reorganization proposal was
held with the restatement of concern for the potential loss of
checks and balances. The Chairs are viewed as the only authority
figures in the eyes of the University that can adequately serve as
the buffer and advocate for the faculty. The questions of
responsibility, authority, and trust were some additional concerns
mentioned and the need to have an organizational structure that will
provide faculty advocacy from more than one individual. Also, if
they go to one department it will be difficult to add other
departments in the future, if needed. Finally, overall, there was
very little support for the one department model, in fact some
expressed the rationale for a third department and additional
administrative directors to run education and research combined and
patient care and public service combined.¾
Also there is an important note regarding the original date
for the College of Dentistry faculty to discuss the proposal,
January 18, 1996. We had other meetings regarding the proposal and
during those meetings the Dean was present. At this particular
meeting the Dean was not present; the faculty felt free to speak up
and did. Quite often in the other meetings there was a coercion
factor present. I think our faculty will back that up as they did
when the material was presented at the hearing for Dr. Griffith and
the Organization and Structure Subcommittee. At that meeting of the
faculty on January 18th, several very important items were raised;
there were questions related to the checks and balances, very good
points they thought. These points were never answered. The next
thing they knew, the entire basic proposal, unchanged, was sent
forward to the Senate to be reviewed by the Organization and
Structure Committee in spite of the fact that none of those
questions were answered.
During that time we had a time of writing letters and people
did write letters either in support or against. Not everyone wrote
letters initially. A memo was sent from the Dean's office
requesting that those faculty who had not written letters to send
letters to him to be included in the dossier. I objected to that
and sent a memo to the faculty saying that they did not have to
respond if they did not want to and quoted the rules of the Senate
Rules and Organization Committee. The main problem in the entire
process was the rules of the Senate Organization and Structure
Committee for organizational changes were not followed with the
initial proposal.
The Academic Council for the Medical Center unanimously
approved the proposal. This was not known widely in the college
that it was even being considered as an agenda item. Once it was
considered and approved, no one was informed officially that it had
occurred.
On August 1995 the proposal was forwarded to the Senate
Committee on Academic Organization and Structure for review and
recommendation.
I am opposed to the proposal for the reasons already
expressed through the various Senate Committees.
A question was raised if the vote had been 28 for and 25
opposed would it have gone forward. Dr. Mullaney answered that the
committee was under the idea that if they were to go forward they
would need about 75% support from the faculty to recommend it
strongly as a possible proposal.
Chairperson Schach made some corrections on the chronology,
on the first page February 1994, should be February 1995. On the
August 1995 section on page 2, the last sentence should read Ê26
faculty send individual letters to the Committee supporting the
reorganization and 25 faculty signed a petition opposing.¾
Bill Griffith Chairperson of the Senate Committee on
Academic Organization and Structure made the following remarks:
As you can tell there have actually been two proposals that
came before our committee. One year ago at this time we reviewed
the first proposal and made a recommendation, Gretchen LaGodna was
the Chair of the Senate Council at that time. Let me review how we
looked at the first proposal and recommended what we did.
We began meeting early in the Fall of 1995 and were using
the guidelines for reviewing proposals that John Piecoro had sent
out. They were developed, I believe, in 1993. We met with the Dean
and two different groups of faculty from the College of Dentistry.
I had a lot of phone calls and letters, both of support and
opposition for the first proposal. We had the following findings
for the first proposal. The consultation with faculty was less
extensive with the first proposal than we would have expected and
various questions had never been fully resolved or addressed. In
fact on January 17, the College of Dentistry Council met and the
minutes of that meeting indicated that the positives and negatives
of the first proposal were discussed. Then there was a list of
questions to be answered and needs to be addressed. Two other
proposals besides the Deans were presented. The minutes of that
January 17, 1995 meeting stated that the discussion of these
proposals will continue in this forum as well as in upcoming college
faculty meetings.
In Dean Nash's documentation there was only one more
discussion and that was the next day and no minutes were kept and no
straw vote was taken. Dean Nash presented his proposal on February
2, 1995 and forwarded it to President Wethington on April 24, 1995,
essentially in its original form. This proposal and this process
led to some very serious divisions within the College. There was a
lack of communication and a lack of trust between the Dean and a
significant number of faculty in the college. We were very
concerned and felt for the college to move ahead and for the new
structure to be successful there would have to be some unity. In
our recommendation we made two suggestions. We asked that details
be added to the proposal because the original proposal really
contained very few. We suggested that they use a mediator to help
bring some unity to the college. In fact, at that time there was
beginning to be some defection from the supporters of the original
proposals, so the numbers would change. The numbers from the Spring
of 1995 reflected more support than was there October 1995. It was
a very difficult situation and we thought if they would take it
back, add some detail, and work out the problems and try to add some
unity in the college that some good would become of it. Gretchen
and I went to visit Chancellor Holsinger. He appointed a bipartisan
committee. The cochairs of that committee represent both sides.
You've heard what their work was and heard the recommendation that
they gave to Chancellor Holsinger last summer, which was that a
single department structure does not have the support of the faculty
necessary to implement such a structure.
We are also concerned about the fact that the current
Governing and Administrative Regulations, do not sufficiently
address the division as an educational unit. Although they did put
considerable into that proposal, there are still some questions,
such as if there were to be future reorganization how would that be
done? The Governing Regulations do not address what happens when
divisions are reorganized.
Finally we felt the real reason was to produce savings. Yet
there was no compelling argument which would describe how much
savings there would be. The documentation was inconsistent on this
point. In light of that and the fact there was still was such
strong division in the College of Dentistry, we felt in order for
this to be successful a large number of people had to buy into the
idea and obviously they had not. It was our recommendation to the
Senate Council that the recommendation to the full Senate be
negative.
Chairperson Schach said that the Senate Council had
recommended unanimously against the proposal. The reasons are in
concurrence with the Senate Committee.
Doug Boyd (Communications and Information Studies) asked
what the Senate Council concluded about the pedagogical reasons for
the reorganization and learning outcomes that would result. The
Chair said she did not believe that they went into an in-depth
discussion of pedagogical rational; it was more the process and the
outcome administratively. Gretchen LaGodna said that some of the
faculty who opposed the change did so on pedagogical grounds. Jess
Weil stated he was on the Committee for Organization and Structure
for both considerations and that issue was not addressed very
strongly in the proposal.
A senator asked if the issue of streamlining of patient care
or clinical concerns was addressed in the proposal? The Chair
answered no.
Bill Freehling stated he did not understand why the proposal
was on the agenda. The Chair said that the reason it was there was
that the Council believed it was an important enough issue with
possible ramifications across the campus, particularly relating to
faculty governance, that it was worth bringing to the floor of the
Senate despite the recommendations against.
Chancellor Holsinger said that the procedures that are
undergone for such a reorganization is that it does go to the
University Senate for its recommendation to the Chancellor and the
President. He believes it is appropriate for it to be discussed for
exactly that reason. This body has the right to make a
recommendation to the President and to the Chancellor. This is a
good proposal, a proposal that he feels would work, otherwise he
would not have sent it forward to the President. He feels the
University Senate needs to give their recommendation. The
administration can not make a determination until they know what
that is.
Pamela Kidd would have liked to look at the details of the
proposal. She can not address what the faculty concerns are without
seeing it in its entirety and what the issues are. She feels rather
uninformed to discuss the issue. She also wondered about mediation.
Did they act on the suggestion for mediation for the second issue?
Chancellor Holsinger said the committee was offered multiple
opportunities to have mediators, there were names available if the
committee needed them. As they understood, the committee was evenly
split between those opposed and those who approved. They were able
to come to a consensus on their own. They came forward with a
proposal which they as a faculty committee had consensus about and
went to the full faculty. The offer for mediation was always
available.
Robert Spedding (Dentistry) said this was simply a matter of
trust. It is a matter of checks and balances and belongs to the
Senate because it is an academic matter. The Chairs of the
departments of all the Colleges of the University are academic
appointments and they represent academia. If they go down to one
department, they will not have the checks and balances. If trust
was not a matter of concern the proposal might have been unanimous.
Jesse Weil said that he helped draft the proposal that there
be mediation. The thought about the mediation was that the faculty
of the College of Dentistry was split down the middle. It appeared
that there was no chance for such a proposal to work with the
college split in that way; it would be a house divided within
itself. They felt the only way they could come up with a proposal
would be to start at the bottom and the faculty to have mediation.
The Committee of Organization and Structure saw as one of the flaws
in the proposal is that it is a proposal from the top down, it did
not arise out of perceived needs in the faculty to meet academic
issues, to meet clinical treatment issues, or any other issues in
the college. Because of that, we have this situation now, with some
people for and some against, and if it is adopted he felt it would
be disastrous for the College of Dentistry.
Gretchen LaGodna said she would like to call upon what Dr.
Spedding had said and to perhaps repass this also in view of what
Jan said earlier about the importance of continuing a path of shared
governance. Part of that shared governance has to do with decisions
that are jointly made administratively and faculty wide. One of the
issues that most concerned the Senate Council during their
deliberations, was that the department is the basic academic unit in
the Governing and Administrative Regulations. There is no smaller
recognized academic unit. What this means for faculty is that if
you have anything that is less than or different from a department,
it can be reorganized without faculty vote, approval, and without
going to the Academic Organization and Structure Committee. This is
an issue that they have some very real concern about. She could not
think of any departments that had been added, but of some that had
been deleted. As long as the department is the basic academic unit,
then there are some real issues that need to be considered.
Bill Witt (Medicine) said he did not know what all the
proposal was, but that they gone through the formation of a group
practice in the College of Medicine, which he hated, but at the same
time recognized that it was essential that they did it. It involved
giving up a lot of individual autonomy; a lot of department
autonomy. It came from the top down and at the same time recognized
the current health care climate. It was obvious they had to do it.
Whether or not patient care issues came into the discussion, he
feels in a very short time they will. In a time of decreasing
research funds, we are talking increased collaboration in research
efforts. In a time of decreasing health care dollars, we are
talking increasingly about collaboration in delivering patient care.
In a time of decreasing income from whatever source, clearly the
only way we can maintain budget is to cut costs. Looking at it
objectively, it would seem that if the issue is just a matter of
trust, all the paperwork in the world isn't going to prevent a bad
outcome if the trust is misplaced. By the same token if there is
good reason to be trustworthy then we are just dealing with fears
and they will pass. He would suggest he could see a lot of merit in
this type of thing, whether this particular one is right or not.
Increasingly we are consolidating all the time, giving up autonomy,
that is going to be the future. Dr. Reedy mentioned that it did not
matter where we are, it matters where we need to be in ten years.
It would seem we need to do more consolidation not less.
Ray Mullins (Dentistry) stated he was in favor of the
proposal. He would like the Senate to understand that you can not,
in his opinion, rationally consider this proposal without
understanding it also evolved in a climate of a dispute over major
program direction in the College of Dentistry. It is difficult to
air dirty linen in public. We have been through a time period where
we have had a split among our faculty about program direction.
Those sorts of issues lead to issues of trust; issues of
interpersonal disagreement. That is what you are seeing in this
vote. He personally believes that there are more checks and
balances to protect faculty in the proposal than the system they
currently have. He also respects the opinion of a lot of his
colleagues that it is not the case. He would certainly not want it
to be viewed in isolation, not understanding that there has been a
lot of programmatic disagreement and interpersonal differences that
have influenced the nature of the process.
Mike Cibull (Medicine) addressed Dr. Witt's points by saying
that the reorganization of the practice plan has taken place
perfectly fine in the setting of the department system of the
College of Medicine. There has been no need to dissolve departments
in order to get the practice plan instituted. He agreed with Dr.
LaGodna that dissolving the last symbolism of checks mainly the
department in favor of streamlining the process is not a good idea
in the long run. One of the most important things that Dr. Reedy
said was that the University has been fairly unique in shared
governance and the University of Kentucky goes forward because
everyone buys in eventually to the plan and goes forward. It is not
going to happen in you remove all the power from the faculty and
make it a slave of the Administration. The enthusiasm will
disappear at that point. If you have a problem programmatically,
you address the problem programmatically, you do not try to
restructure the organization to circumvent the problems.
Jordon Cohen (Pharmacy) said that over the last fifteen
years or so, the division structure has worked well. He says that
to try to convince them that new kinds of thinking about structure
are going to be important. Rather ironically, they are considering
a possibility of consolidation towards departments. He would not
want to get stuck on this over the fact that you would assume that
faculty would loose authority or autonomy in shared governance, just
by the mere fact that you no longer have a department structure. He
feels they can hold their college up high as an example of one that
has worked very well in a divisional structure over a long period of
time.
Mike Friedman (Theater) said he felt his colleagues in the
College of Dentistry have already spoken on this issue through their
division. He said it was an insult to their process to favorably
commend this proposal to the Chancellor. The pros and cons of the
proposal have been debated by their colleagues in Dentistry. In
fact a bipartisan commission has been appointed and has concluded by
insufficient consensus exists in that unit to support this
reorganization. He feels not apt to ignore their recommendations,
and to ignore the recommendations of our own Senate Council and ourr
own Senate Committee to grant a favorable recommendation to a
proposal with which he is completely unfamiliar. He does not need
to see it, it is enough for him that the people who have fought
longest and hardest about it have seen fit to reject it.
Bill Witt felt he should respond to Dr. Cibull's comment
about his remarks. Departments have not been eliminated in this
Institution, but around the country, departments in fact are being
eliminated in large numbers. Specifically for needs to streamline
in the market place.
The question was moved. Motion to stop debate passed in an
unamious voice vote.
The motion to deny the proposal for the College of Dentistry
passed in a voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Betty J. Huff

Secretary, University
Senate
Minutes, University Senate, November 11, 1996

* Mary K. Kelly * University of Kentucky Registrar's Office *
* 12 Funkhouser Bldg., Lexington, KY 40506-0054 *
* mkell01@ukcc.uky.edu * (606)257-7169 *