MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, DECEMBER 8, 1997

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., December 8, 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*, Jim Albisetti, M. Mukhtar
Ali, George Blandford*, Ben Bogia, Douglas Boyd, Fitzgerald Bramwell, Geza
Bruckner*, Joseph Burch, Mary Burke*, Lauretta Byars, Johnny Cailleteau,
James Campbell, Ben Carr, Edward Carter, Raymond Cox, Frederick Danner*,
Philip DeSimone, Robert Farquhar, Juanita Fleming*, William Fortune, Donald
Frazier, Michael Friedman, Richard Furst, David Hamilton, Issam Harik, Rick
Hoyle, Clifford Hynniman, Mark Ison, Michael Jones, Jamshed Kanga, Edward
Kasarskis, Craig Koontz, Alan Leech, Thomas Lester, C. Oran Little,
Marianne Lorensen, Stacy McCarthy, Steven Middendorf, Mark Miller, Josh
Mitchell, David Mohney*, Mary Molinaro*, Wolfgang Natter, Anthony Newberry,
Jacqueline Noonan, Les Olson, Thomas Pope*, J. Todd P=92Pool, Shirley Raines=
,
Dan Reedy, Thomas Robinson, Edgar Sagan, Horst Schach, David Shipley,
Gregory Smith*, David Stockham, Louis Swift*, Enid Waldhart*, Thomas
Waldhart*, Jesse Weil, Paul Willis, Emery Wilson, Charles Wethington*,
Carolyn Williams, Eugene Williams, William Witt.

* Absence Explained

The Chair called the meeting to order and made the following announcements.

The October minutes were in the process of being copied and the November
minutes were in the process of being edited

The faculty member who has a class in this room before the Senate Meeting
has asked that Senators please not enter the room until the class is over.

The annual Holiday Social is tomorrow at 4:00 p.m., in the President=92s Roo=
m
at the Singletary Center for the Board of Trustees. The Board is meeting
tomorrow so most of them probably will not arrive until 5:00 p.m.

Paul Willis had been invited to come back and give more information about
the new library. Due to some schedule conflicts Paul is not able to be
here today. However, he wanted to emphasize to all faculty that they
should not modify course assignments or reserve activity in the Spring
semester due to the book move. They will not allow the book move to
interfere with these activities, and the move contract provides that even a
book in transit must be made available to a patron requesting it within
twenty-four hours. They are using a national library book mover and
control during this move is by computer program.

At the last meeting motions were passed that effectively removed a lot of
the apparatus related to prior service. Remember that these are our
recommendations and now must go to the Administration for review. If
approved by the Administration, governing regulation changes must be
approved by the Board of Trustees and all changes must be incorporated into
the Administrative Regulations and Governing Regulations. Until then
remain under the current and unchanged Prior Service System. Our
recommendations have been forwarded to the Administration.

The Chair stated there were two resolutions. The first is a resolution
sent with the endorsement of the Kentucky Coalition of Senate Faculty
Leaders (COSFL). This is a resolution that they are hoping that University
Senates around the State will endorse as they approach the Legislative
session where there are two prefiled bills related to Post-Tenure Review.
He introduced Professor Roy Moore, chair-elect of the Senate Council to
present the resolution.

ACTION ITEM 1 - Consideration of COSFL Resolution
Background:
The following resolution was passed by unanimous vote at the November 15
meeting of the Coalition of Senate and Faculty Leaders (COSFL). COSFL has
asked that this be forwarded to each Senate at public universities for
adoption. Bills on post-tenure review have been prefiled for the 1998
session of the General Assembly. COSFL will be making contact with
legislators concerning this issue.

RESOLUTION

The Coalition of Senate and Faculty Leaders of Kentucky (COSFL) unanimously
endorses the following position on post tenure review:

WHEREAS
(a) the review processes currently in place at Kentucky=92s public
universities are multiple in form including reviews of faculty performance
after receiving tenure and
(b) most, if not all public higher education institutions in the State are
already implementing or piloting various additional procedures for
=93post-tenure review=94 in the sense being suggested in proposed=
legislation and
(c) tenure as currently defined in the statutes is designed to protect
academic freedom and not to protect incompetence, refusal to perform
duties, or immoral behavior and=20
(d) efforts to adapt or enhance faculty review processes must recognize the
varied missions of each institution (as outlined in the recently passed
state higher education reforms)

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT

The Coalition of Senate and Faculty Leadership of Kentucky (COSFL)
recommends that universities be given opportunity to assess their pre and
post tenure review policies and, if necessary, further adapt faculty
performance review and accountability processes to the specific mission of
their institutions and the expectations of the higher education reform act.
Since the universities have such varied missions, COSFL opposes passage of
any new legislation imposing a single system of post tenure review on all
public universities.

Passed with a unanimous vote on November 15, 1997.

Professor Moore reviewed the proposal and the background. He said ince the
resolution did not come from the Senate Council it required a motion and a
second.

There was a motion and a second from the floor. There was no discussion
and the resolution passed in an unanimous voice vote.

Proposal for a Resolution

Submitted to the University Senate
8 December 1997
by=20
Joan C. Callahan, Professor
Department of Philosophy

I. BRIEF BACKGROUND:

The State of Hawaii is on the verge of allowing same-sex marriage.
Kentucky legislators have already begun to react in anticipation of that
decision. Currently, three anti-gay bills have been prefiled for the next
legislative session. More are likely to be filed during the session. Such
laws unfairly burden members of the University community (among others).

II. PREFILED BILLS:

As will be obvious, the point of the first two bills is to preclude
same-sex marriage in Kentucky - either being performed here or recognized
here when performed elsewhere. The point of the third is to preclude
same-sex couples from the protection from domestic violence which is
provided for heterosexual couples.

BR 119 - prefiled by Rep. Jim Bruce
AN ACT relating to marriage
Amend KRS 402.020 to declare a marriage between persons of the same sex
void; amend KRS 402.040 to prevent recognition of same-sex marriages
contracted outside of Kentucky; create a new section of KRS Chapter 402 to
define the term =93marriage=94 limiting the term to a relationship between
persons of the same sex.

BR 143 - prefiled by Rep. Sheldon Baugh
AN ACT relating to marriage
Create a new section of KRS Chapter 402 to render same sex marriage, which
occurs in a foreign jurisdiction, void and unenforceable in Kentucky; amend
KRS 402.020 to prohibit same sex marriage in Kentucky; amend KRS 402.040 to
make invalid a same sex marriage involving a resident of Kentucky who
marries in another state; amend KRS 402.030, 402.210, and 402.260 to=
conform.

BR 305 - prefiled by Sen. Tim Philpot
AN ACT relating to domestic violence
Amend KRS 403.720 to read: =93 =91Member of an unmarried couple=92 means eac=
h
member of an unmarried couple OF OPPOSITE SEX which allegedly has a child
in common, any children of that couple, or a member of an unmarried couple
OF OPPOSITE SEX who are living together or have formerly lived together.=94

III. PROPOSED RESOLUTION:

Be it resolved that the University of Kentucky Senate opposes passage by
the Kentucky Legislature of BR 119, BR 143, and BR 350, as well as passage
of any other proposed bills which would discriminate against sexual
minorities from treatment under the law equal to that of heterosexuals.

IV. RATIONALE:

The Senate takes this position because any statutes precluding sexual
minorities from equal treatment under the law unfairly burden members of
our student, staff, administrative, and faculty communities.

The Chair recognized Professor Joan Callahan to present the second
resolution. Professor Callahan reviewed the proposal. There was a second
to the resolution.

Tom Blues (English) asked if acceptance meant passage? Professor Callahan
accepted the change of acceptance to passage as a friendly amendment.

Ellen Hahn (Nursing) asked about the difference in the bill numbers, should
it be 305 or 350? Professor Callahan said it should be 350.

Hans Gesund (Engineering) asked if they passed this resolution if they
would be weakening themselves in the first resolution which is much more
germane to their purpose. If it will cause them to lose on post-tenure
review, which is of more immediate consequence than this resolution.

Doug Poe (Business and Economics) said that he was opposed to the
resolution as he would be to a resolution that supported these bills. He
did not feel is was the business of the University Senate to become
involved in what are in fact trivial legislative matters compared to those
that affect them such as post-tenure review. Everything that the
legislature passes affects someone at the University. If they are going to
pass resolutions on every prefiled bill they are going to spend all their
time voting on them. Regardless of how he feels personally, he does not
like these types of resolutions.

David Durant (English) felt that the Senate is conspicuous for not engaging
itself in very important matters and this was a chance to speak on
something that is important.

Debra Harley (Education) said it was critical that they address this issue.
They can not weigh one resolution against another. They are not related
in this sense. They would be saying they were picking A over B because
they might have a better shot at one or the other. This is a separate
issue from the previous resolution and should be looked at in such a way.

Bradley Canon (Political Science) said that they had received no notice to
this resolution prior to the meeting. He made a motion to postpone the
resolution the resolution until February. The motion was seconded.

The motion to postpone failed in a show of hands; 21 in favor, 35 opposed.

Hans Gesund asked if there was not a ten day circulation rule. Professor
Jan Schach answered that when it came to resolution items, any resolution
can be made from the floor of the body and does not need a ten day
circulation. That is for business coming from the Senate Council. The
Chair ruled the ten day circulation rule did not apply.

Tom Blues made the amendment to strike the phrase precluding sexual
minorities and include the wording discriminate against sexual minorities.
The amendment was seconded. Professor Callahan said that because the term
discriminate is loaded she avoided that language. Some people do not feel
that it is discrimination. It is in fact unequal treatment and so the
resolution built in that language which points to equal treatment rather
than discrimination which is a normative term rather than a descriptive=
term.

The amendment failed in a voice vote.

The resolution passed in a show of hands; 37 in favor, 21 opposed.

ACTION ITEM 1 - Revised proposal to modify the Governing Regulations
relative to interruption of service during probationary period. A
recommendation from the University Senate to the Administration.

Action Item
Proposed modifications to Governing Regulations (GR X-3ff) relative to
interruption of service during probationary period (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 granting
of tenure. Material to be added is underlined; new guidelines are bold and
underlined; material to be deleted is in brackets:

2. Probationary Periods

2. Probationary periods (or maximum non-tenure periods) are not applicable
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 titles.
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] 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] For a faculty member with
more than three years in the academic profession, who is called from
another independently accredited institution and appointed at the rank 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, even though
thereby the individual's total non-tenure period in the academic profession
is extended beyond[seven] years. [However, in any case where a period of
prior service of a prospective faculty member involves significantly
different institutional objectives or significantly different professional
activity, all or part of the period of prior service may be eliminated from
consideration in determining the maximum non-tenure period in the
University System or the Community College System of the University of
Kentucky.] Except as provided in Part X.C.7, time spent on leave of absence
shall count as 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 review
would occur no later than the seventh year of an appointment. In the event
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 interruption
of University service shall remain between the individual faculty member
and the appropriately authorized administrator (Division Director,
Department Chair, or Dean). Typically, interruption of service will be
granted only in cases of personal, family, or medical crises or for other
catastrophic events during which professional productivity would be
severely compromised. It is recognized that the University and its units
are subject to all appropriate state and federal laws, including but not
limited to the Family Medical Leave Act and any and all other such laws 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 reviewed
the promotion and tenure system during the 1996-97 academic year. It is
forwarded with the recommendation of the Senate Council with the following
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's professional competencies. That is, accurate assessment
by the institution of the individual's professional 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 events
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 "budget neutral"
proposal). It does provide equal opportunity to ALL faculty members,
regardless of their life circumstances, to demonstrate their scholarly
competencies. There is nothing inherently "magical" 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 "life intrusion". The proposal is consistent
with decisions of major Fortune 500 companies and other business entities
which acknowledge the complexities of life circumstances that often affect
the most valuable resource of an organization -- the employee. The
recommendation reflects the sense of the November Senate debate including
guidelines for conditions under which suspension of the probationary period
may be granted.

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

Chairperson Applegate stated that the first action item was a return to an
issue from the last Senate Meeting. The proposal coming from the Promotion
and Tenure Task Force to allow for a one year interruption of the tenure
clock was defeated by one vote at the last meeting. At the end of that
session it was suggested that they should look at this again and bring it
back with some attention to the criteria under which that interruption
could be provided. The Senate Council considered this. He recognized
Professor Moore for introduction of the item. Professor Moore said that
there was one key change on Page 2 which is highlighted by boldface and
underlined. He reviewed the new criteria and recommended approval.

James Brennan (Mathematics) asked how this differed from the original
proposal? The boldfaced information does not in any way change what was
discussed last time. It leaves it up to Colleges to do what they want.
Professor Moore said that had not been changed, what they had been asked to
do was to come up with criteria.

Discussion focused on the use of the word =93typically=94 in the criteria
statement.

Alan Kaplan (Medicine) said the proposal was substantially less permissive
than the proposal from last time, which was somewhat open ended. This is
fairly restricted.

The Chair said that his sense was that they did not want to preclude that
there might be some legitimate reason that would not fall under this
criteria. A stoppage for which a case could be made, although not a
typical reason.

Robert Molzon (Mathematics) said he did not understand how the use of the
word typical in this sentence provides any criteria whatsoever. It seems
that it simply a comment on what the use of this might be but it does not
in anyway restrict it or clarify the statement as was previously stated.
The other problem he sees is the ambiguity and the language as to who is to
make the decision, is it up to the faculty member, the dean, or the
chairman. It is completely unclear who is going to make the decision.
Could a chair decline to postpone for a year if the chair felt that it was
a medical emergency but this person was not going to make it anyway?

Mike Nietzel (Dean, Graduate School) said that the sentence before that in
terms of discretionary decision making is what would answer that. Speaking
on behalf of the Task Force that drafted the original that did not have
this sentence in it, he said this is a good attempt to preserve what they
intended but shied away from in terms of specifying some criteria. He
would hate to see the proposal falter on the presence of the word
typically, so take it out if it is a word that injects such anxiety into
them in terms of what it means. It would be progress to have the change go
forward with the word typically removed. This would be a friendly
amendment, so the proposal would not be defeated because of the presence of
the word typically.

The Chair said that they would treat the omission of the word =93typically=
=94
as editorial.

Hans Gesund (Engineering) said that there was a problem with interruption
of service will be granted only based on personal family and medical crisis
or other catastrophic events. Having a baby and taking care of that baby
for six months or a year should be permitted. Yet that is neither a crisis
nor a catastrophic event. That should be included here.
There are several other places where this needs to be reworded. He would
like to send it back, or if it is passed make sure it is edited. There is
also a problem if a faculty member is called from elsewhere what happens in
that case, for instance someone called from a research institution, what
applies to a person like that? The Chair said that was a prior service
question and had been resolved.

Mike Cibull (Medicine) said that he guessed that the reason for this was to
help in those extraordinary cases where something catastrophic happens that
stops someone from working for a good part of a year and the tenure clock
needed to be stopped. He did not feel that pregnancy and delivery fell
into that category. There is a six week maternity leave and most women do
return to work. If they want to give the woman a year off for maternity,
do you want to give her husband a year off for paternity? Than anyone who
has a child gets a year off to do promotion and tenure? Chairperson
Applegate said that Professor Gesund was suggesting that crisis should be
perhaps enlarged to included childbearing and Professor Cibull was
suggesting that should not be the case. There has not been an amendment to
change that. Professor Cibull said that there are circumstances where
having a child would make that necessary.

Ellen Hahn (Nursing) said that her concern was that discretionary decision
making would take care of that, each unit will be able to decide with the
faculty member. Her concern is that there is not prior approval by other
faculty input. There is really only one person and the faculty member.
What if there were a case where that person did not like you or thought you
were not doing the job? There needs to be more faculty input into this
decision and perhaps there should be a committee in each unit that had
input. A crisis could be anything and that should be left up to the unit
to decided what that is in that particular situation and look more at how
the decision is made.

Jim Knoblett (Business and Economics) asked why they did not assign this
task to the Privilege and Tenure Committee, they are dealing with it all
the time anyway. That would put it in one common body. There would be
uniform type decisions.

The Chair asked if that was an amendment, Professor Knoblett answered yes.
The amendment was seconded. The Chair said they would now be discussing
only the amendment.

Bradley Canon (Political Science) said he did not feel this was a Privilege
and Tenure matter. That committee spends a considerable amount of time
relating to complaints about denial of tenure or alleged invasion of
privileges. This is an issue that probably should have its own committee
because this is going to come up with some frequency.

Alan Kaplan (Medicine) said it seems this was a personnel issue between a
faculty member and a chair. If the faculty member is not satisfied with
what the chair has decided has the right to go to the dean. That seems
like a highly appropriate was to deal with a personnel decision, very
consistent with the way other personnel decisions are dealt with.
Secondly, this is occurring frequently at a time when whether or not a
faculty members succeeds or fails is granted, a continuation of contract is
still within the province of the chair and the department not the Promotion
and Tenure Committee. It seems highly inappropriate for Promotion and
Tenure to be dealing with personnel issues.

Carolyn Bratt (Chemistry) said that the problem with having only the chair
and the faculty member involved is that these issues will become the basis
of law suits. Professors who are unsuccessful in getting tenure after
having received such a years=92 waiver may claim that other faculty and area
committees refused to take into account that extra year was not supposed to
be accompanied by any productivity. If they do not get the extra year than
they will look at other people in other departments and say that this was
granted in other departments for the same circumstances. This will have
legal ramifications for the University.

Jim Holsinger (Chancellor - Medical Center) said that he was not sure as he
reads this at what level in the administrative organization it is expected
that the decision will be made. It says division, director, department
chair, or dean basically is appropriate. Will this go through the entire
administrative chain where normal activity occurs or is it meant to be
handled at the division level if there is a division level?

Maria Boosalis (Allied Health) asked if it was the Privilege and Tenure
Committee for each college? The Chair said he assumed it was the
University Committee. Professor Knoblett said he was referring to both of
them. There is a process where it has to go through the college and then
to the University committee.

The Chair said he thought that Promotion and Tenure and Privilege and
Tenure were getting confused. They are two different things. Promotion
and Tenure Committees are at college and university levels. Privilege and
Tenure is a University Committee. The amendment is to have this decided by
the Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure within the college. The
question was asked if that meant the dean made the decision, since that
committee is advisory to the dean?

Judy Goldstien (Computer Science) said if this is an ad hoc decision and
someone is waiting to take care of a dying parent, then they would want a
decision more quickly than three committees can process it. If it is a
posthoc decision, can they not count last year who spent their time dealing
with crisis, than that makes sense. However those in crisis often want
information before making important decisions.

Doug Poe (Business and Economics) said that he had just spent some time
with University legal staff and they say that if one person makes a
decision you are much more likely to get sued than if it is a committee
decision.

James Brennan (Mathematics) asked if this was going to be accompanied by
some dossier indicating the person=92s work? On what basis are they going t=
o
make this decision?

Joan Callahan (Philosophy) asked if the proposal was that the request for
such leave go through the normal process which would involve having the
faculty and the department make a recommendation to the chair, than the
chair writes a letter and that goes to the advisory committee to the dean,
than the advisory committee meets and the advise the dean? The Chair said
that under the amendment basically it would go through the same process
that a promotion dossier would go through.

Mike Neitzel said that these were some of the reasons why they did not
address some of the criteria issues. If they are talking about the kinds
of crisis that this envisions, they should think carefully whether they
would want faculty members to have to expose the information to this many
people as far as making this kind of decision. There were some privacy
concerns that were voiced about what is involved in the kind of personnel
decision that is being made here. Regardless of whether we may be more
likely to be sued, which they probably will be, they should make a decision
based on what they think is the right thing to do for faculty members. He
hopes they could do that with as few people involved and knowing about this
sort of information as possible and yet still have it conducted fairly.

Lee Meyer (Agriculture) felt that this should be done between the lowest
level administrator and the faculty member. One of the points of
discussion in the Senate Council has been about tension or lack of trust of
administrators. His feeling is they should have this type of personnel
decisions happen at that level and if there is an inappropriate decision it
can be appealed. They need the administrators to address these kinds of
issues not always move them into faculty committees and governance.

David Durant said he thought the privacy issues might be particularly
important to people who got turned down in this process. It would be
grievous to them to ask for a years extension for something that is quite
private and have a lot of people know about it.

Hans Gesund said that the proposal said nothing about an appeals process.
According to the way this is written, the decision of the chair is final.
He moved for this proposal to go back to the Council for a rewriting in
light of the discussion.

The motion to refer back to the Senate Council passed in a voice vote.

The Chair asked for direction in what the Senate wanted added to make this
proposal work. Professor Knoblett said that the issue really was that if
it was positive to where do they have recourse, that needs to be in there.

The Chair said that all they could do would be put in whatever personnel
policies say about personnel decisions such as this.

The question was asked what is the policy or practice now, if there is a
situation such as this? It was suggested that the only way the tenure
clock could be interrupted now was if a faculty member ran for political
office or took a leave without pay. There was no good mechanism for
allowing this right now and there have been a number of instances where
that has been a problem for faculty. The Task Force was attempting to
address that issue. =20

Robert Molzon said that two things should be clear. First, who is making
the decision and that includes whatever appeal process is going to be
involved. Secondly, it should be clear what the criteria are. If the
purpose of this is to excuse people or give people an additional year for a
medical circumstance that will prohibit them from continuing in their
normal academic duties it should say that.

Rhoda-Gale Pollack (Dean - Fine Arts) said that there was a process that
they could follow. It is the educational leave which does interrupt the
probationary period. That is already policy and does move quickly.

ACTION ITEM 2 - Proposed Technical Standards from the University of
Kentucky College of Medicine.

Proposal:
The attached proposed technical standards from the University of Kentucky
College of Medicine have been approved by the Academic Council for the
Medical Center, the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards,
the University Senate Council, and are forwarded to the Senate for approval.

Attachment

PROPOSED TECHNICAL STANDARDS
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

The College of Medicine's goal is the broad preparation of students to
practice medicine with special emphasis on primary care. Regardless of
eventual specialty selection, students must demonstrate competence in those
intellectual, physical, and social tasks that together represent the
fundamentals of medical practice. Applicants and students will be judged
not only on their scholastic achievement and ability, but also on their
intellectual, physical and emotional capacities to meet the full
requirements of the school's curriculum. As an advisory committee to the
Dean, the Admissions Committee is instructed to exercise judgment on behalf
of the faculty to recommend the entering class, and to consider character,
extracurricular achievement, and overall suitability for the medical
profession based upon information in the application, letters of
recommendation, and personal interviews.

The Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits the Medical
School, requires that the curriculum provide a general professional
education, enabling each student to pursue graduate training in a variety
of disciplines. This requires the development of broad knowledge, skills,
and behaviors, enabling ongoing self-directed learning, further training
and delivery of competent medical care. The basic sciences curriculum
includes the study of anatomy, biochemistry, histology, pathology, and
pharmacology and is designed to establish a core of knowledge necessary for
clinical training. The clinical curriculum includes diverse experiences in
primary care, family medicine, internal medicine, obstetrics and
gynecology, pediatrics, psychiatry, surgery, diagnostic imaging, pathology,
emergency medicine, geriatrics, and rehabilitation medicine, in ambulatory
and inpatient settings. These rotations develop the ability to practice
medicine independently, regardless of the future choice of specialty. Each
student is required by the faculty to pass each required course and
clinical rotation to graduate.

The following technical standards specify those attributes that the faculty
considers necessary for completing medical school training, enabling each
graduate to subsequently enter residency and clinical practice. These
standards describe the essential functions students must demonstrate in
order to fulfill the requirements of a general medical education, and thus,
are prerequisites for entrance, continuation, and graduation from medical
school.

The University of Kentucky College of Medicine will consider for admission
to the medical school any applicant who demonstrates the ability to perform
or to learn to perform the skills listed in this document. Applicants are
not required to disclose the nature of their disability(ies) to the
Admissions Committee; however, any applicant with questions about these
technical requirements is strongly encouraged to discuss the issue with the
Assistant Dean for Admissions prior to the interview process. If
appropriate, and upon the request of the applicant/student, reasonable
accommodations may be provided.

Certain chronic or recurrent illnesses and problems that interfere with
patient care or safety may be incompatible with medical training or
practice. Other illnesses may lead to a high likelihood of student illness
and should be carefully considered. Deficiencies in knowledge base,
judgment, integrity, character, or professional attitude or demeanor which
may jeopardize patient care may be grounds for course/rotation failure and
possible dismissal.

A student must possess aptitude, abilities, and skills in five areas: 1)
observation; 2) communication; 3) sensory and motor coordination and
function; 4) conceptualization, integration and quantitation; and 5)
behavioral and social skills, abilities and aptitude. These are described
in detail below. Students must be able to independently perform the
described functions.

1. OBSERVATION
Students must be able to observe demonstrations and conduct experiments in
the basic sciences, including, but not limited to physiologic and
pharmacological demonstrations in animals, microbiologic cultures, and
microscopic studies of microorganisms and tissues in normal and pathologic
states. A student must be able to observe a patient accurately at a
distance and close at hand, noting nonverbal as well as verbal signals.
Specific vision-related requirements include, but are not limited to the
following abilities: skin, culture media, and dipstick tests; visualizing
and discriminating findings on x-rays and other imaging tests; reading
written and illustrated material; observing demonstrations in the
classroom, including projected slides and overheads; observing and
differentiating changes in body movement; observing anatomic structures;
discriminating numbers and patterns associated with diagnostic instruments
and tests, such as sphygmomanometers and electrocardiograms, and using
instruments competently, such as stethoscope, otoscope, ophthalmoscope, and
microscope.

2. COMMUNICATION
Students must be able to relate effectively and sensitively with patients,
conveying a sense of compassion and empathy. A student must be able to
communicate clearly with and observe patients in order to elicit
information, accurately describe changes in mood, activity and posture, and
perceive verbal as well as nonverbal communications. Communication includes
not only speech but also listening, reading, and writing. Medical education
presents exceptional challenges in the volume and breadth of required
reading and the necessity to impart information to others. Students must be
able to communicate quickly, effectively and efficiently in oral and
written English with all members of the health care team. Specific
requirements include but are not limited to the following abilities;
communicating rapidly and clearly with the medical team on rounds;
eliciting a thorough history from patients; and communicating complex
findings in appropriate terms to patients and to various members of the
health care team (fellow students, physicians, nurses aides, therapists,
social workers, and others). Students must learn to recognize and promptly
respond to emotional communications such as sadness, worry, agitation, and
lack of comprehension of physician communication. Each student must be able
to read and to record observations and plans legibly, efficiently and
accurately in documents such as the patient record. Students must be able
to prepare and communicate concise but complete summaries of individual
encounters and complex, prolonged encounters, including hospitalizations.
Students must be able to complete forms according to directions in a
complete and timely fashion.

3. SENSORY AND MOTOR COORDINATION OR FUNCTION
Students must have sufficient sensory and motor function to perform a
physical examination utilizing palpation, auscultation, percussion, and
other diagnostic maneuvers. In general, this requires sufficient
exteroceptive sense (touch, pain and temperature), proprioceptive sense
(position, pressure, movement, stereognosis and vibratory), and motor
function. A student should be able to execute motor movements reasonably
required to provide general care and emergency treatment to patients. They
must be able to respond promptly to urgencies within the hospital, and must
not hinder the ability of their co-workers to provide prompt care, measure
angles and diameters of various body structures using tape measure and
goniometer, measure blood pressure and pulse. A student should be able to
learn to perform basic laboratory tests (urinalysis, complete blood count,
etc.), and diagnostic and therapeutic procedures (phlebotomy, arterial
blood gas drawings.- lumbar puncture, arthrocentesis, etc.). Examples of
such emergency treatment reasonably required of physicians include arriving
quickly when called and initiating appropriate therapeutic procedures,
administering intravenous medication, applying pressure to stop bleeding,
opening obstructed airways, suturing uncomplicated wounds, and performing
uncomplicated obstetrical maneuvers.

4. INTELLECTUAL-CONCEPTUAL INTEGRATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ABILITIES
These abilities include measurement, calculation, reasoning, analysis,
judgment, numerical recognition and synthesis. Problem solving, a critical
skill demanded of physicians, requires all of these intellectual abilities,
and must be performed quickly, especially in emergency situations. Students
must be able to identify significant findings from history, physical
examination, and laboratory data, provide a reasoned explanation for likely
diagnoses, and prescribe medications and therapy, recalling and retaining
information in an efficient and timely manner. The ability to incorporate
new information from peers, teachers, and the medical literature in
formulating diagnoses and plans is essential. Good judgment in patient
assessment, diagnostic and therapeutic planning is essential; students must
be able to identify and communicate the limits of their knowledge to others
when appropriate. Students must be able to interpret graphs describing
biologic relationships and do other similar modes of data.

5. BEHAVIORAL ATTRIBUTES
Empathy, integrity, honesty, concern for others, good interpersonal skills,
interest and motivation are all personal qualities that are required.
Students must possess the emotional health required for full use of their
intellectual abilities, the exercise of good judgment, the prompt
completion of all responsibilities attendant to the diagnosis and care of
patients, and the development of mature, sensitive and effective
relationships with patients. At times, this requires the ability to be
aware of and appropriately react to one's own biases and immediate
emotional responses. For example, students must maintain a professional
demeanor and organization in the face of long hours and personal fatigue,
dissatisfied patients, and tired colleagues. Students must be able to
develop professional relationships with patients, providing comfort and
reassurance when appropriate while protecting patient confidentiality.
Students must be able to work collaboratively with other members of the
health care team. Students must possess adequate endurance to tolerate
physically taxing workloads and to function effectively under stress. All
students are at times required to work for extended periods, occasionally
with rotating shifts. Students must be able to adapt to changing
environments, to display flexibility and to learn to function in the face
of uncertainties inherent in the clinical problems of many patients.
Students are expected to accept appropriate suggestions and criticism and
if necessary, respond by modification of behavior.

Chairperson Applegate recognized Professor Moore for introduction of the
item. Professor Moore reviewed the background of the item and recognized
Professor Lois Nora from the College of Medicine for more information about
the proposal.

Professor Nora made the following remarks:

As all of you know in recent years there has been increased attention to
the need for all schools and particularly professional schools to identify
technical standards that need to be met for admission, promotion, and
graduation of students from programs. This is in part stimulated by the
Americans with Disabilities Act that requests a broader understanding of
the need to establish those standards. As was identified, the College of
Medicine has had technical standards previously accepted by this group.
About eighteen months ago, we identified a number of ways in which they
could be improved. A task force was identified which worked on this and
the technical standards which you have front of you have been developed by
the task force, reviewed, modified, and ultimately accepted by our
admissions committee, curriculum committee, student progress and promotion
committee, and our faculty counsel. We will that the document has been
improved with better organization and clearer examples, with elimination of
identification of specific disease protocols and the inclusion of examples
that will help both our students and faculty understand what is expected.

Hans Gesund asked since when was a stethoscope a vision related instrument?
The other thing is =93students must be able to communicate quickly,
effectively, and efficiently in oral and written English with all members
of the health care team specific requirements include......enlisting a
thorough history from patients.=94 There are a lot of patients who are non
English speaking and nonverbal. The students should be required to speak
at least foreign language. It is unfair to foreign born candidates for
admission because it is not specified how well they have to be able to
communicate. If they have passed TOEFL with a certain score that is a
specific requirement otherwise it is much too subjective.

Professor Nora said that she believed she was representing her colleagues
in saying that they would not be in agreement that a TOEFL score would
necessarily be enough and that there are a number of experiences in which
actual observation and seeing what happens might support their conclusion.

James Brennan said it seemed that everyone had to speak at least one common
language, why not make it English. The written history documents are going
to be read by a lot of people.

Lois Nora said she thought he was speaking to the cultural diversity issue
and she was delighted to say that they took that very seriously in the
College of Medicine. They have not gotten to the point of requiring the
other languages and she does not see that quickly coming.

Mike Cibull said that technical standards are minimum standards. English
is certainly a minimum standard for communication in the United States and
other languages are not a minimum requirement. It is perfectly appropriate
for technical standards to include the ability to speak and write English.

Kaveh Tagavi said in Number 2 it says =93communicating rapidly and clearly=
=94.
They have a graduate student who has stuttering problems. It takes five
times longer for him to communicate an idea than a normal person.
Emergency physicians have to be able to communicate rapidly. Why should a
person who can not communicate rapidly be excluded from medical school?

Professor Nora answered that the purpose of technical standards is to
identify what needs to occur. If there was a person who could not or felt
they could not communicate rapidly than it would be their opportunity to
identify an accommodation which might include the use of writing or the
like. That individual would be treated individually in a determination of
whether or not they can communicate rapidly. Actually technical standards
work to the advantage of the individual student. Because then if someone
is diagnosed as a stutterer in the example it does not necessarily preclude
them from participating in an education. One of the purposes behind the
Americans for Disabilities Act and technical standards in general is to
avoid the situation where people are on the basis of a diagnosis excluded
from a particular environment and the emphasis is on the individual and
whether or not they can meet the standard with or without reasonable
accommodations.

Professor Tagavi asked if rapid communication was necessary or not?
Professor Nora answered in emergency situations in medical care our College
of Medicine faculty have determined that the ability to communicate rapidly
in an emergency is necessary. Professor Tagavi asked if the document was
only for emergency physicians? Professor Nora replied that no, these are
basic standards for someone who would complete a medical degree of pursue a
career which includes involving in emergency situations essentially for
every student who goes through the curriculum.

The question was called and seconded. Motion to call the question passed
in a voice vote. The proposal passed in a unanimous voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 3 - Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section V -
5.1.3.2 (Incomplete Grades)

Proposal (brackets indicate deletion; underlining indicates additions)

5.1.3.2 Grade I (US: 9/14/87): The grade I means that part of the
regularly assigned work of the course remains undone. It shall be given
only when there is a reasonable possibility that the student can complete
the work within the allowable period of time for removal of an I grade and
that a passing grade will result from completion of the work. Except under
exceptional circumstances, the student will initiate the request for the I
grade. An I grade shall not be given when the student's reason for
incompleteness is unsatisfactory to the instructor. A grade of I must be
replaced by a regular final letter grade not later than 12 months from the
end of the academic term in which the I grade was awarded or prior to the
student's graduation, whichever occurs first. The instructor can extend the
contract period for up to an additional 12 months by completing a grade
assignment form. If the instructor is not available, the department chair
or dean of the college in which the course is offered may complete a grade
assignment form to extend the contract period for up to 12 months. In the
event the grade of I is not replaced by a regular final letter grade within
the allowable period, the University Registrar shall change the I grade to
a grade of E on the student's permanent academic record and adjust the
student's grade point standing accordingly. In the event that an I becomes
an E, the instructor may submit a grade assignment form to replace the E
within 12 months from the time the E was assigned. A graduate who had an I
grade on his or her academic record at the time of graduation (and which
grade was subsequently changed to an E by the Registrar) may be allowed a
maximum of 12 months following the end of the term in which the course was
taken to satisfactorily complete the course and receive a grade change. [If
the instructor is not available, the department chair or dean of the
college may petition the chair of the Senate Council to extend the contract
period of the I grade.] (US: 10/1 1/93)

Rationale: Instead of leaving the decision regarding extension of
Incompletes beyond one year to the Chair of the Senate Council, the
decision is now placed in the hands of the instructor who would be in the
best position of determining whether an extension was warranted and
practical. The revisions also place an absolute cap of 24 months, rather
than leaving the extension period open-ended, as it is at present. (There
is currently no time limit on the granting of an extension by the Chair of
the Senate Council.)

Background: This proposal was recommended by the Senate Council Task Force
on Retroactive Withdrawals and Extensions of Incompletes. The Task Force
was charged by the Senate Council in May, 1997, to review various waivers
and substitutions for consistency and legitimacy of such practices in light
of academic quality, fairness, and compliance with the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposal before the Senate was unanimously
recommended by the Task Force, and approved by the University Senate=
Council.

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

Implementation Date: Fall, 1998

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

Tom Blues said he was concerned that in the event an instructor is not
available that a chair or dean might extend the period. As one involved in
a program in which almost all the classes are done by teaching assistants
it is a customary event that they leave or move on. Who becomes then
responsible for the completion of the course in the event that some other
person authorizes an extension?

Jan Schach (Agriculture) said that it was her understanding that the chair
then takes responsibility for making the decision in the absence of the
instructor.

The Chair said that in the current University Senate Rules when an I grade
is assigned the instructor files on record a form that gives the name of
the student, the course number, the semester, signature, a brief statement
of reason for the incomplete, specific instructions on how alternate grades
and the work will be competed, a specific time requirement, and the
students signature if feasible. The instructor is to provide a completed
copy of the record to the student and the department chair. The department
chair is then empowered to handle that if the instructor is not available.

Tom Blues said that in other words then the person who signs the extension
becomes the responsible person in the event of instructor availability for
the completion of the course and the assigning of the final grade. Who
becomes responsible?

Roy Moore said that idea was that they needed to have some means whereby
the student has the option of having an extension even though the
instructor is no longer available. Tom Blues said that then they were
asking someone who has not taught the course and is unfamiliar with the
assignment in the first place and has no context to take over the grading
of the student=92s work and assigning a semester grade.

The statement was made that that is the current situation except the time
limit is longer. Currently if an instructor gives an incomplete grade and
then disappears then it falls back on the department or the dean. This can
go on for a longer than a two year period.

Kim Anderson (Engineering) said that she felt a year is a long enough time
for a student to complete the work in a course and that extension should
only be given in extenuating circumstances. If they adopt this policy they
are opening Pandora=92s box for student=92s to have I grades for two years a=
nd
that is too long. Professor Moore stated that is exactly what is going on
now because it goes to the Senate Council Chair. Professor Anderson said
that is goes through the deans and they look at it if it is a nonacademic
reason that they needed that extension. Professor Moore said that
different colleges apply different standards. Professor Anderson said that
now different faculty are applying different standards.

Jan Schach said that as a Senate Council Chair who has read many of the
cases for extension, she can guarantee that some of them are very much
merited. Right now Pandora=92s box is open anyway, because the Senate
Council Chair will probably get a request like this at least once a week.
What they are trying to do is to get that decision making capacity down as
close to the local level of those people who understand the course and the
course material as possible. If the chair is the best you can do it is
probably a whole lot better than the Senate Council Chair.

The question was called. The motion to stop debate passed in a unanimous
voice vote.

The proposal passed in a voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 4 -Proposal to alter the procedures for granting retroactive
withdrawals.

Retroactive Withdrawals*

*Retroactive withdrawals are defined as withdrawals initiated after the
last day of classes for the semester.

Recommendations

1. The current system under which retroactive withdrawal requests are
forwarded to the Chair of the University Senate Council for a decision
should be abolished.

2. The University Senate create a Retroactive Withdrawal Appeals Committee
made up of four faculty and one student, plus alternates, named by the
Senate Council. A representative of the Associate Vice-President for
Administration, Equal Opportunity Office, and a representative from the
Assistant Dean of Students directing the Disabilities Resource Center, will
serve as ex officio, non-voting members of the Committee.

3. Considerations of requests for retroactive withdrawals will be done
using the following guidelines:

a. Typically, a student may withdraw from a given semester only if the
withdrawal is from all classes.

b. Requests for retroactive withdrawals may not be granted beyond one
calendar year from the last day of class for the semester for which the
withdrawal is requested.

c. Retroactive withdrawals may be granted only when the student has
demonstrated satisfactory evidence that the student has incurred:
=95 A serious injury or illness
=95 Serious personal or family problems
=95 Serious financial difficulties
=95 Permanent disability verified by the Disability Resource Center and
diagnosed after the semester in question

4. A uniform process should be adopted for all retroactive withdrawals

a. The student first files the request, including appropriate documentation
with the Dean of the student's college in which the student was enrolled at
the time the classes were taken. It is recommended that a uniform form be
adapted. A model form for the Senate to consider is that currently used by
the College of Arts & Sciences. (See attached sample.)

b The Dean makes a recommendation for approval or disapproval of the
request and forwards the recommendation to the Senate Committee. (See item
2 above.)

c. The Committee normally renders a decision within 30 days of receipt of
the recommendation from the Dean and shall forward all approved requests to
the Office of the Registrar for implementation. The student shall have the
right to appear in person before the Committee to present his or her
request and shall have the right to be represented by an attorney or other
designated individual.

d. The Committee shall forward a copy of its decision--whether the request
is approved or not--to the Dean of the student's current college and to the
Dean of the college in which the student was enrolled at the time of the
retroactive withdrawal, if different from the current college. As provided
under University Senate Rules 5.1.8.3, the Dean shall notify the instructor
of the committee's decision.

Rationale: The Senate Rules do not permit withdrawals after the last day
of class for the semester. If retroactive withdrawals are to occur, the
Rules should recognize this and specify the process by which they will be
granted.

At present, different colleges follow different procedures, use different
forms and even apply different standards for consideration. A uniform
process would ensure greater fairness.

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

Implementation Date: Fall, 1998

Attachment

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES POST MID-TERM WITHDRAWAL PETITION
257 Patterson Office Tower (606) 257-8712

CONTINUE TO ATTEND THIS CLASS UNTIL A DECISION CONCERNING YOUR WITHDRAWAL
HAS BEEN MADE.

Today's Date____________________Your
Major:__________________________________
Name__________________________SS#____________________Local Phone___________
Local Address_______________________________________________________________
The College of Arts and Sciences requires documentation verifying any
of the 3 reasons below.

A student may withdraw from a class during the latter half of the term upon
approval by the dean of the student's college of a petition certifying
urgent non-academic reasons including but not limited to:
I. Illness or injury of the student,
II. Serious personal or family problems,
III. Serious financial difficulties.
Senate Council [Rule v, 1, 8.3]

COURSE, PREFIX NUMBER, and
SECTION:_____________________________________________

Term (Semester) enrolled in
course:_______________________________________________

Total number of currently enrolled hours?_____________Are you a
senior?_______________
Reason(s) for withdrawing:* (If you need more space, attach additional
sheets).

*NOTE: Petitions listing one of the above non-academic reasons without
explanations and documentation will not be considered. In order for this
petition to receive due consideration, you must attach all original
documentation showing your inability to withdraw prior to the midterm or
verify extenuating circumstances that prevented you from academic
participation after the mid-term.










Instructor's Name (please
PRINT)_________________________________Phone_______________

Campus Address (please PRINT)_________________________________Speed
Sort____________

Action Taken by Dean: _____Approved by____________ Date:_________________.
_____Not Approved
______________ Student Notified
______________ Sent to Senate Council
______________ Instructor Notified
______________ Entered (SIS) by
Forms\Withdraw.doc 3/97
Per Senate Rule V, 1,8.3
Before acting on such a petition, the dean will consult with the instructor
of the class. If such a petition is approved by the dean of the student's
college, the dean shall inform in writing the instructor of the class of
the action, and the student shall be assigned a grade of W.

Please assist the College of Arts and Sciences Student Services Office (257
POT; 7-8712) in our making a decision on this petition to withdraw after
the midterm by supplying as much of the information as you can. If you
would like to attach a course syllabus, please feel free.

_______I would like to discuss this petition. If yes, please check.

1 .I [do]____ [do not]_____ take attendance. Is attendance required?
Yes_____ No_____

If attendance is taken, was the student's attendance:
Regular __________ (until what date) _______________
Sporadic _________ (beginning at what date) _________
Rare ____________ (beginning at what date) _________

2. HOMEWORK AND QUIZZES
If you assign homework or have quizzes, please provide information on the
following:

_____ # of homework assignments _____ # completed _____ average grade
_____ # of quizzes _____ # completed _____ average grade

3. TESTS

__________________# of tests given as of today's date
__________________# of tests taken by the student

4. What was the student's grade for the class at midterm?

5. What is the student's current grade ? To the Instructor:

6. Has the student ever contacted you during office hours or with regard to
his/her particular situation?
_______Yes
_______No

7. Were you aware of this student's situation prior to receiving this form?
______Yes
______No

Additional comments:______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________ _____________________________
(Instructor's Signature) (Date)
Support Information for Medical Withdrawal from the University

Withdrawal Policy

Students requesting withdrawal from the University after mid-term must
petition the dean of the college in which the student is enrolled
certifying urgent nonacademic reasons including but not limited to: illness
or injury of the student, serious personal or family problems, serious
financial difficulties.

This form is to be completed by a licensed Health Care Professional. Please
respond to all questions asked. This information will be reviewed by the
Office of the Dean in consultation with other appropriate university
personnel.

1.Specific diagnosis or nature of medical
condition?__________________________________________

condition?__________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________
______

______

____________________________________________________________________________
______

______

____________________________________________________________________________
______

2.Date illness was
diagnosed?___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
________

3.Type of treatment
prescribed?__________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
________

4. Was hospitalization required?_________If yes, indicate
date(s):______________________________

5.Date of last contact regarding the medical
condition:________________________________________

6.In what specific way did the illness affect the student's ability to
attend class/complete the semester?

attend class/complete the semester?

____________________________________________________________________________
______

______

____________________________________________________________________________
______

______

____________________________________________________________________________
______

______

____________________________________________________________________________
______

7.Include or attach information on test results, surgeries, medication or
other information that supports this request.

other information that supports this request.

____________________________________________________________________________
______

______

____________________________________________________________________________
______

______

____________________________________________________________________________
______

8.Other information in support of this request:
8.Other information in support of this request:

____________________________________________________________________________
______

______

____________________________________________________________________________
______

______

____________________________________________________________________________
______

Physician's Name _____________________________________________Phone
__________________

Physician's Address
___________________________________________________________________

Physician's Signature _____________________________________________Date
________________

Return to: College of Arts and Sciences, Student Services
257 Patterson Office Tower
Phone:(606) 257-8712
FAX: (606) 323-1073
The Chair recognized Professor Moore for introduction of the item.
Professor Moore reviewed the background of the item and recommended
approval on behalf of the Senate Council.

The Chair clarified under 3A =93Typically, a student may withdraw from a
given semester only if the withdrawal is from all classes.=94 The sense of
the Senate Council discussion was that would be the norm but there might
special circumstances in which withdrawal from a particular class in which
the disability was particularly the problem.

Tony Baxter (Engineering) said that he had noticed that some students think
they have dropped the course after attending the first couple of weeks. If
there is anything in his books he gives an E and figures that the Registrar
will take care of it. It will preclude that student from appealing for a
late withdraw if they can not do it after the end of the semester. He
questions the advisability of the all or nothing rule.

Kim Anderson said that she was concerned about the confidentiality because
many of the students who are withdrawing from a semester have extreme
problems and do they want to expose those problems to a committee?

James Brennan asked how it was possible to get through the whole course and
then decide to withdraw?

Douglas Michael (Law) asked why they allow retroactive withdrawals at all?
Since there is no Senate Rule, there must be a good reason for no Senate=
Rule.

Roy Moore stated that there were a lot of circumstances under which
students request a withdrawal that have merit.

The question was asked what was the problem with the current system that
the Chair of the Senate Council makes the decision?

Roy Moore said that there were several problems that the Task Force saw.
First, different colleges were using different standards, different forms,
and doing it in different ways. If they are happy with that, fine. If
there is going to be consistency and fairness then there should be a
uniform process. Second, they can be done at any time--ten or twenty years
from now. This puts a cap of one year on withdrawals.

Kaveh Tagavi wanted to echo Dr. Michael=92s concern that there was a big
difference between a student who is in five courses and does not show up
for any of the final exams and then two months later he comes and says =93I
was sick or in the hospital, give me a postwithdrawal.=94 and a student who
goes to the final exams and gets a couple of Es and a couple of Cs and then
wants to withdraw. What was the excuse for the student not to withdraw
before the last day of classes.

Jan Schach said that there were extenuating circumstances that a person
does not realize until they have gone through it. For instance there may
be an instance where a person has suffered an emotional breakdown of which
they did not really get diagnosed until afterwards. If you have in hand
evidence where that person has actually been diagnosed by a medical
professional, that is an example. The problem is that as a Senate Council
Chair you have one College bringing complete documentation, the next has
zero. As far as consistency it is impossible. There are serious legal
ramifications as far as ADA is concerned. You have Senate Council Chairs
who have no legal background whatsoever. Hopefully the composition of the
committee will have individuals of that type of background. There will be
better decisions and less potential for lawsuits.

Doug Michael said that having heard the example he does not understand why
they need to accommodate an after the fact stated disability. Is that the
understanding from University counsel that is what the ADA requires? Why
isn=92t the Senate Council chairs answer no?

Roy Moore said because the cases have merit. Professor Michael asked what?
Please give some examples. Professor Schach said that anyone can
appreciate that when there are catastrophic events in some cases you do not
realize the significance of them and there implications on your performance
until after the fact.

Doug Michael said that in their college that would be the Academic Status
Committee. If you want to be readmitted because your grades are low enough
you can no longer stay in the college. You have to explain I got in this
situation because, rather than taking it outside the college. That is how
it is handled in the College of Law.

Debra Harley asked if it was not common now for undergraduate students at
midpoint be sent some written notification if they are at risk for failure
in a particular course with the advise that they should withdraw at that=
time?

The Chair said that there was a requirement that there be by midpoint some
feedback on performance for everyone. Professor Harley asked if that was
not a situation where advice would be given at that point instead of
waiting until the end of the course to withdraw.

Chairperson Applegate said that an example of what seemed to be a
legitimate case was a person who may be going through a very serious
depression. Sometimes they could be in the midst of depression but do not
know at that point. They are struggling, thinking they are okay. That
might have been in the fall semester and in the spring semester after the
fact, looking back they may realize how badly they were impaired. Then,
with the proper diagnosis and medical justifications they might appeal to
have a retroactive withdrawal from those fall courses since they were
unable to perform at the level that would have been reasonable. In those
cases he has granted retroactive withdrawals.

Kim Anderson said that they had a case where someone had gone through some
chemotherapy and was very determined to stay in and went through two
semesters. His grades went up after that but those two semesters were
terrible. She feels a situation like that should be considered.

Michael Tomblyn (Student Senator - Graduate School) said it seemed there
was a lot of people who could not imagine a really good reason for
retroactive withdrawals. On behalf of future students being able to use
this, he wanted to give an example of his second semester as an
undergraduate. During the previous semester he had had some blackout
spells that were diagnosed as some type of seizure disorder. He was put on
medication and did not realize it at the time but it had a strange reaction
in that everytime he went to sleep everything in his short term memory was
zapped. He had a weird situation in that in his computer classes with no
memory required he received As. His discussion seminars he received As.
His physics, calculus, and prechem in which he had to study and memorize
information he received Ds and Es where before he had received As. He had
no idea until summer was over what was going on. This should show that
there are cases like this and also shows that it is possible to be able to
do well in some classes and not in others.

The question was called and seconded. The motion to stop debate passed in
a voice vote.

The proposal passed in a voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.





Donald Witt
Secretary, University Senate