xt7d251fnb4w https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7d251fnb4w/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1983-09-12  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, September 12, 1983 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, September 12, 1983 1983 1983-09-12 2020 true xt7d251fnb4w section xt7d251fnb4w ’ UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

‘ (5
/ LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032
.1 j
2

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
10 ADMINISTIfATION BUILDING

Lg September 1, 1983

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
September 12, 1983 at 3:00 p.m. in room 106, Classroom Building.

AGENDA:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

Minutes of March 21 and April 11, 1983.

Introduction of Senate officers, members of the Senate Council,
and Senate Committee Chairmen.

Resolutions.

Annual Report: Academic Ombudsman: William Lacy. Introduction
of new Academic Ombudsman: Charles Ellinger.

ACTION ITEMS:

a) Proposed selective admissions standards in Chemical Engineering.
(Circulated under date of August 31, 1983)

b) Proposed resolution and recommendations from the University
Senate Library Committee (circulated under date of August 31,
1983).

Proposal to change University Senate Rules, Section VI, 3.3
relative to sanctions for academic offenses. (Circulated un—
der date of August 29, 1983)

 

Proposal to change University Senate Rules, Section III, rela—

tive to course processing. (Circulated under date of August 30,
1983)

 

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, SEPTEMBER l2, 1983

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, September l2,
l983, in Room l06 of the Classroom Building.

E. Douglas Rees, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: Roger B. Anderson, Richard Angelo*, James Applegate*, James
Bader*, Michael Baer, Dennis K. Baird, Charles E. Barnhart, Susan M. Belmore*, Jack C.
Blanton, Thomas D. Brower, Joseph T. Burch, Ellen Burnett*, Glenn B. Collins*, Gary L.
Cromwell, Donald F. Diedrich*, Richard C. Domek*, Herbert Drennon, Anthony Eardley,
Donald G. Ely*, Ray Forgue*, Richard N. Furst, David Gast*, Charles P. Graves, C.
Michael Gray*, Andrew J. Grimes, Joseph Hamburg, Jesse G. Harris*, Bra Hobbs, Raymond
R. Hornback, Robert Lawson*, D. C. Leigh, Carol R. Lowery*, Edgar Maddox, Sally S.
Mattingly*, H. Brinton Milward*, Harold Nally, Merrill Packer*, Gerald A. Rosenthal,
Caryl E. Rusbult, Edgar Sagan, John T. Smith, Joseph V. Swintosky*, John Thompson,
Kenneth Thompson, William C. Thornbury*, Lee T. Todd, O'Neil Weeks

The Minutes of the Meetings of March 2T and April ll, l983, were approved as
circulated with the exception of two corrections. On page l3 of the meeting of
March 2l, l983, the linear equation should be EGPA = -0.443 + 0.0534 ACT + 0.286
HSGPA. On page l3 of the meeting of April ll, l983, the recommendation made by the
ad hoc committee and approved by the Senate Council on cheating and plagiarism was
deferred until the Fall Semester.

Professor Douglas Rees, Chairman of the Senate Council, introduced President
Otis Singletary as follows:

”The first officer of the University Senate is the
Chairman of the University Senate and the President of
the University holds that position. The Senate Rules
specify that the President is the presiding officer un—
less he delegates that responsibility. Traditionally
this has been delegated to the Chairman of the Senate
Council, and I presume that tradition is being continued
this year. There is another tradition and that is that
the President address the Senate at its first meeting
of the academic year, and it is our pleasure that the
tradition continues today. Members and guests of the
University Senate, our President, Dr. Singletary.”

The President spoke to the senate and his remarks will be reported at a later
time.

The Chairman introduced the Secretary of the Senate, Dean of Admissions and
Registrar, Elbert w. Ockerman; Recording Secretary, Martha Ferguson; the two new
Sargeants at Arms, Ms. Mary Mayhew and Professor Ronald Farrar.

The Chair recognized Professor Robert Bostrom, Secretary of the Senate Council,
for a motion. Professor Bostrom, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved that the
Rules 9f_the University Senate be temporarily suspended so that Professor Emeritus
Gifford Blyton might serve as the Parliamentarian. Senate rules specify that the
parliamentarian be a voting member of the senate. Professor Blyton served as the
parliamentarian for many years of the senate. The motion was seconded and passed
unanimously.

 

 

*Absence explained

 

 The Chair introduced the members of the Senate Council who are: David Bradford,
Student Government President; Scott Yocum and Deepak Dhawan, student representatives;
Professors Susan Belmore, psychology; Robert Bostrom, communications; Bradley Canon,
political science and Chairman of the Rules Committee; Wilbur Frye, agriculture;

Andy Grimes, business and economics; Donald Hochstrasser, allied health; Malcolm
Jewell, political science; Alfred Winer, medicine, Connie Wilson, social work, Jim
Kemp, agriculture; and Donald Ivey, music. Chairman Rees said the single most valuable
person on the Council was Celinda Todd,

The chairmen of the committees for l983-84 are: Professors R. A. Altenkirch,
Admissions and Academic Standards; Andrew Hiatt, Academic Planning; William Lyons,
Academic Programs; James Applegate, Academic Organization and Structure; David A.
Spaeth, Academic Facilities; Robert Guthrie, Academic Research; and Charles
Haywood, Sub—committee on Resource Allocations.

The Chairman recognized Professor Robert Bostrom for a Resolution on Professor
Donald Ivey.

Professor Bostrom spoke as follows:
"Mr. Chairman, Fellow Members of the University Senate:

Professor Donald Ivey has just completed a vigorous and
interesting year at the tiller of the University Senate, follow—
ing the distinguished footsteps of our previous council chair—
persons.

Ivey's chairmanship has been an eventful one, both because
of the events of the times, and because of Ivey's active
leadership.

When Ivey was chairman, the tempo was always allegro, In
his term, the Senate had a distinguished record of activity.
Here are some of the subjects addressed during Donald's chair—
manship:

The Selective Admissions Procedure

Policy on Robinson Forest

Policy on Sexual Harassment

Computer Science Selective Admissions
Admissions Standards, Allied Health Professions
Expansion of Accelerated Programs

In addition, Don personally represented the faculty in open
meetings with the board, specifically with regard to the
administrative reorganization. He met with and was instru—
mental in getting the UK Senate involved with the Congress
of Faculty Leaders, established a strong working relation—
ship with members of the Council on Higher Education, and
set a new record for being misquoted by the Kentucky Kernel.

Always the blithe spirit, Don's approach to English
usage is interesting and entertaining, To say that his
speech is heavily metaphorical is to understate the case. It
is instructive to hear a meeting of the Undergraduate Council

 

 -3-

described as a “barn dance” or a conversation with an
official in the Medical Center referred to as a ‘minuet,’ or
even a 'polka.‘ These metaphors, together with an occasional
foray into more salty expressions, made Senate meetings
bearable and sometimes even interesting.

When I first came to Lexington, I joined a local communi—
ty chorus called the Lexington Singers. Donald was then
serving as one of the directors of that group, and for the
Spring concert, he asked me to sing a brief solo. I was de-
lighted, but as the concert approached, I began to get a
serious case of cold feet. I expressed my misgivings to Don
and suggested that perhaps he should find another singer.
'Nonsense, brother!‘ he snorted, 'just get out there and do.
your damndestl'

That phrase typified Don Ivey. We are all his brothers
and sisters, and all he asks of us is that we do our damndest.

Ivey has been doing his damndest in a long career at UK
and specifically for the past year as Chairman of the Senate
Council. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Senate record its grati—
tude to Donald Ivey in a resolution of appreciation for an
interesting and productive year.

The senate members showed their appreciation by giving Professor Ivey an enthu-
siastic round of applause.

The Chairman introduced the new Ombudsman, Professor Charles Ellinger and Frankie
Garrison, his counterpart. Professor William Lacy, immediate past ombudsman, was
recognized for his report.

Professor Lacy spoke to the senate as follows:

”This past year as the University of Kentucky Academic
Ombudsman I have not only had the opportunity to serve faculty
and students, but to see the University from a new perspective.
It has been a stimulating, challenging and often personally
gratifying experience. Throughout my tenure I have been con—
tinuously learning.

Indispensable to this learning process but even more
important to the efficient functioning of the office were sev-
eral key individuals. It would be impossible to name them all.
First and foremost I must thank my assistant, Frankie Garrison,
whose knowledge and familiarity with the Ombudsman‘s duties and
the University, as well as her sense of fairness and equity were
essential to the functioning of the office. Second, previous
Ombudsmen, Jean Pival and Mike Brooks, were invaluable sources
of information and commiseration. Third, Paul Sears, the Presi—
dent's Special Assistant for Academic Affairs, Senate personnel
such as former Chairman Don Ivey and Cindy Todd and Rules
Committee Chairman Bradley Canon were helpful in clarifying con-
fusing rules and enveloping suggestions for new policies. Fourth,
George Dexter and Linda Hensley in the Registrar's Office,

 

 -4-

Barbara Mabry in the College of Arts and Sciences, Gay Elste

and John Darsie in the Office of Legal Counsel and William Fortune,
Chairman of the Appeals Board, were particularly important for

the smooth functioning of this office. Finally, I would like to
express appreciation for the confidence demonstrated in me by

the nominators, Ombudsman's Search Committee and the President.

Although the Academic Ombudsman has been a part of the
University for over a decade, questions still remain regarding
the purpose and function of this office. I think the plaque in
the Ombudsman's office provides a useful guideline to the
activities of the position. It reads 'Helping to bridge the gap
between the students, faculty and administration at UK.‘ In
doing so I have found that at various times the Academic Ombuds-
man must be a teacher, a mediator, a negotiator, a reference
librarian, a politician and a counselor. However, if a colleague
had decided that he/she wants to exercise power within the
University I would warn him/her that this position has little
formal power. The distressed or disgruntled student hopes that
the Ombudsman has power with a capital P and that he/she is a
Solomon, an attorney general and dictator all rolled into one.
In fact students find that the only power of the office is the
power of persuasion rather than coercion. Ironically, however,
the Ombudsman sometimes seems to be too powerful to those with
whom we deal on a collegial level. In contacting colleagues the
Ombudsman apparently was a threat to some and a nuisance to others
but a person who had to be reckoned with because of his/her
Presidential appointment. Consequently, to those who seek our
help we may appear to be powerless and to those who are the sub-
jects of our inquiries we often appear to have too much power.

Like my predecessors, I have seen this position as more than
simply a complaint department, although that is certainly one
of its main functions. In addition, for this office to improve
its effectiveness in serving this community, it must find ways
to address the many recurring complaints. These perennial prob—
lems need more than ad hoc solutions. Instead they may require
increased community awareness of the current policies and problems,
as well as changes in rules, policies and often departmental or
college practices. To accomplish this I have sent several
notices to the faculty reminding them of academic policies and
rules to avoid potential problems. I have also met with groups
of students at Freshman Weekend, attended receptions for new
students, served on panels which introduced University services
to returning adult students, and granted interviews to various
University publications. Finally I have worked with the Senate
and the Rules Committee to amend certain Senate Rules many of
which emerged from recommendations of previous Ombudsmen.

Despite these various activities, the specific student and
faculty problems handled by this office continue to grow and in
fact constitute most of the work of this office. The nature of
the problems this year were similar to those encountered by my
predecessors. The most frequently occurring problems included
dissatisfaction over grades (8l), teaching practices and person-

 

 -5-

ality conflicts (56), cheating (42), exam scheduling (23),
plagiarism (l6), absence policies (l4), and inadequate advising

(5).

In presenting the statistics of the cases handled, I wish
to offer two cautions. Numbers alone provide only the skeleton
of the problems experienced and not the seriousness nor emotion
felt by those involved. Secondly, the numbers probably are in—
dicative of greater incidence of these problems. The Ombudsman
is contacted only after other routes of appeal have been exhausted
and only by the most persistent or desperate.

From July l, l982 to June 30, l983, the office has handled
29l multiple contact cases and 6lO brief cases which generally
required only information, referral or brief advice. The number
of multiple contact cases, however, does not reflect the extent
of the ombudsman's activities. Approximately 30% of these cases
required 6 or more telephone calls or interviews and one case
entailed 94 separate contact with the involved parties. The
following totals are listed by colleges. They are designed to
illustrate how complaints cluster. It also should be noted that
the number of cases in any one college is related to total size
of the college. Arts and Sciences accounted for the highest
number of cases — l27; followed by Business and Economics — 30;
Engineering - 23; Fine Arts - l8; Medicine — l3; Agriculture — 9;
Communication and Home Economics - 8 each; Education — 7; Nursing -
5; Library Science - 3; Extension and Law — 2 each; Allied Health,
Architecture, Dentistry and Social Work — l each. An additional
32 multiple contact cases involved several units or other admin—

istrative offices in the University.

The characteristics of the students involved in multiple
contact cases are as follows: 35 freshmen, 67 sophomores, 80
juniors, 85 seniors, 49 graduate and professional students, and
2 Donovan Scholars. A random check of the grade point averages
of these students reveals that there is a tendency for the older
and the brighter students to initiate the complaint.

Having described the Ombudsman’s role and the nature of the
academic problem areas, I would like to offer a few observations
and recommendations for change:

l. Two years ago the Self—Study Committee on Student
Development, a committee I chaired, recommended
that the Academic Ombudsman's position be restruc—
tured as a two year full-time position. Since then
a case load which had increased from 84 multiple
contact cases in l97l-72 to 253 in l980-8l has
risen to 29l this year. Yet the staff of the Ombuds-
man's office has remained the same, one full—time
assistant and half-time Ombudsman. I would strongly
urge action on this recommendation.

 

 Currently, the academic rights of students under
academic evaluation are limited to course performance.
However, academic evaluation of a student's per—
formance may include a much wider range of activi-
ties such as research performance, departmental
qualifying exams or standardized licensure exams,
thesis defense and overall evaluations of a student's
record. Although these criteria are described in

the University of Kentucky Bulletin or educational
unit or program bulletin, when procedures are vio—
lated the student lacks the right of appeal to the
Academic Ombudsman or the University Appeals Board.
The Senate will be considering a rule change to
address this problem. I would urge passage of such a
change.

The current rule governing absences provides only
for absences due to authorized University trips.
Students on such trips are entitled, if feasible,
to an opportunity to make up the work missed and
shall not, in any case, arbitrarily be penalized
for the absence. Students absent for any other
reason, including hospitalization or a death in
the immediate family, are not entitled to these
same considerations. The Senate will be consider—
ing a rule change to deal with this problem. I
would recommend passage of a rule that encompasses
a broader definition of an authorized absence.

The final recommendation is coupled with a general
observation. Over the last couple of decades,
there has been an increasing emphasis on scholar—
ship and research particularly at large institutions
such as the University of Kentucky. This in it-
self is commendable but it has frequently come at
the expense of teaching and academic advising. Re-
cent studies reveal that University reward struc-
tures continue to emphasize research publications
and to de—emphasize superior teaching. Paralleling
this trend has been the large scale use of teaching
assistants and part—time instructors in lower
division courses. These people often are treated
as second—class faculty, lack teaching experience,
and in some cases due to foreign origin lack ade-
quate command of the English language. Furthermore,
they generally receive little incentive to develop
pride in the University as a center for learning.
Finally, financial constraints have resulted in the
erosion of some academic programs, the increase in
student-teacher ratios and the decrease of energy
and morale among faculty called upon to deal with
too many students with too few resources.

A l982 national survey conducted by the Higher
Education Research Institute at UCLA revealed that

 

 -7-

fewer than half the students said they had improved
their analytical skills or their ability to solve
problems during their college years. Furthermore,
only a third of the college students surveyed
indicated they had improved their speaking and
writing skills, gained confidence in their ability
to handle academic work, or developed a greater
ability to work independently. Ironically about
three quarters of these undergraduates said they were
generally pleased with the caliber of their instruc-
tion.

In light of these developments and research findings
in higher education, I would make only one major
final recommendation: That as Senators and members
of the University community, we continue to re—
affirm a primary commitment to quality education

at the University of Kentucky and seek ways to
achieve that goal.

The opportunity to seek redress from an Academic Ombudsman is
only meaningful in the context of institutional and individual
commitment to educational excellence.”

Professor Lacy was given a hand of applause, and the Chairman thanked him for the
report.

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Bostrom for the first action item on the agenda.
Professor Bostrom, on behalf of the Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposed
selective admissions standards in the Department of Chemical Engineering. The proposal
was circulated to members of the senate under date of August 3l, l983. The Chairman
said that the proposal was not approved by the Committee on Academic Standards but was
approved by the Senate Council.

Professor Peters was recognized by the Chairman to give the reasons for the pro—
posal. Professor Peters said that in the Spring Semester of l982 and the following
Summer, engineering instituted a study of the graduating classes of l979, l980 and l98l
to look at the performance of those students throughout their tenure at the University.
The conclusion was reached that the admissions standards in the college at that time
were that they were admitting a large number of students who were not successfully
completing the program. The college felt that in the interest of those students it
would be wise to make adjustments. The recommendations are 75th percentile on national
(college bound) norms and 80th percentile on mathematics.

The floor was opened for questions and comments. Dean Ockerman felt it would be
helpful to point out that the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee did take the
proposal up last Spring. The committee did not see the need for adjustment in standards
of admission in that department over and beyond the selective admissions standards that
had already been approved by the University Senate. Secondly, he believed this pro—
posal was requesting the highest standards of any unit in the University. It seemed
to him it would be helpful to study the proposal and see it on a more positive basis.
Also, he felt the implementation date could not be accomplished by Spring l984.

Professor Peters said the college had experience with the selective admissions
policy for five years. They have been admitting a large number of students and some
30 percent end up not making it through the program. He felt the experience with the
engineering selective admissions policy gave them some confidence that the department

 

 —8—

was moving in the right direction. Dean Ockerman asked if it would be desirable to
raise the standards of the entire college. Professor Peters thought that was being
considered at the present.

Professor Altenkirk said there was a proposal in the committee now to be con—
sidered to increase the standards of admissions in engineering. To proliferate
standards for individual units was not the way to go about the changes. Professor
Canon agreed with Professor Altenkirk about taking a look at all the admissions
standards, but he didn't feel everything should be suspended for two years while
doing this. The standards for computer science were raised and he felt this pro—
posal was basically the same. He didn't think chemical engineering should be punished
just because it was in line.

Professor Cole asked how many transfer students were in the college. Professor
Peters response was that about one—third or one—half of the chemical engineering stu—
dents were transfers. Dean Ockerman wanted to know if there was any decline in en—
rollment in chemical engineering. Professor Peters said there was a decline. Pro—
fessor Lee felt there was an overemphasis on the purpose of the proposal. It was not
to limit numbers because of the lack of facilities but to have students enter the pro—
gram who had a reasonable chance of getting through. He felt it was misleading to a
student to allow them to enter a program where they could not finish.

Professor McMahon asked if the proposal was designed to weed people out in
advance. He wanted to know why it was better to deny a student admission in the
first place when they could register for one semester and then look at the grades.
Professor Kermode said the three classes had been looked at in terms of ACT per-
formance of those that actually graduated. The median ACT score in mathematics
was in the 95th percentile. The median in natural sciences was 94 and the median
ACT percentile in English was in the 84th percentile. That meant over half of
the class who got through the program had a 95 percentile greater in mathematics.
Therefore, a student in the 50th percentile would have a very difficult time com—
peting and generally would not graduate. He said the department was trying to
keep a student from having some cancelled checks and a l.50 grade point average
at the end of two years in the program. He said there were many students in that
category. Professor McMahon wanted to let the freshmen in for one year to see if
they could make the grades. Professor Dillon said that at the present time there
was no way to communicate to the students that they did not have a chance of pass-
ing the program. He said if the proposal were not passed then a vehicle was needed
to communicate to the students whether or not they could complete the requirements.
He wanted to be honest with the students and not mislead them in thinking they
could graduate from UK just because they had graduated from a Kentucky high school.

Professor Rea said there was a difference between this program and the computer
science one in that computer science was not using ACT but performance after arrival
at the University in computer science courses. He felt on the basis of the pro-
posal students would have to be better at mathematics for chemical engineering than
electrical engineering. He wanted to know if a higher standard was being set. Pro~
fessor Leon said that electrical engineering had an open door policy but about 40
percent of those starting did not finish. He felt that was being unfair to the stu-
dents. Last year the department started with l35 in the first course and 90 passed
the course but only about 82 made A, B, or C so essentially 82 out of l35 actually
are going to be admitted to the upper division courses. Professor Eakin felt it was
a counseling problem and not an admissions problem.

The previous question was moved and passed. The motion failed with a hand count
of 56 to 27.

 

 Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom for a resolution and recommenda-
tions from the University Senate Library Committee. On behalf of the Senate Council,
Professor Bostrom recommended that these items be approved and forwarded to the Admin—
istration with University Senate endorsement. These recommendations and resolution
were circulated to the members of the senate on August 3l, l983.

Chairman Rees added that if the Resolution were adopted, there would be an estab—
lished position of the senate on the important matter. The floor was opened for ques-
tions and discussion. Professor Neil wanted to know if it were necessary for library
funds to come out of what was appropriated rather than tuition and other funds. The
Chairman said the problem was that more and more the journals and such were coming out
of nonrecurring funds. Professor Willis said the funding for the library came from
University revenue and that could be from a number of sources.

Chancellor Gallaher said the issue being raised had to do with two kinds of
funds. The budget has recurring and nonrecurring funds. He said the dollars just
had not been there. He said he was sympathetic to the resolution, but the University
was terribly underfunded. In the next budget several items have been built in. He
said the library was underfunded, but it was not because it had not been a priority
in the past but a differential in the allocation. The only place recurring dollars
have grown was for faculty and staff salaries. Professor Neil wanted to know if
tuition was recurring or noncurring funds. Chancellor Gallaher responded that
tuition was budgeted as recurring. He said when a budget was built there were also
figures for expenditures.

Professor Hochstrasser said what the committee was trying to do was get the faculty
aware of the desperate need that this University has for getting additional State
recurring funds to help make up the differential that we lost in the library funds
due to the cut back that occurred several years ago.

There was a motion to add the words ”general fund” in the Resolution which passed
unanimously.

The previous question was moved and passed. The approval of the Resolution, with
the editorial change, passed unanimously and reads as follows:

RESOLUTION
UNIVERSITY SENATE LIBRARY COMMITTEE
l982-l983

It is the position of the Senate and of the University of
Kentucky that the situation of the University Library sys-
tem is rapidly reaching a critical stage. Relative to the
library systems of comparable institutions, the University
of Kentucky's system has been chronically underfunded, and
the funding gap is growing larger. Library resources and
services undergird all other basic academic functions of

the University; if the library system is permitted to de-
cline further, the decline of other support systems and

even the primary functions themselves will inevitably follow.

In view of the immediate and critical importance of this
issue for the entire University community, it is the con—
sidered opinion of the Senate that in its future budget
requests for general fund appropriations, the University

 

 -10-

should give serious and special attention with high priority
to increasing the recurring budget allocations for the Lib—
rary to the level needed in order to provide adequate
funding for the purchase of library materials and to main—
tain a sound program of library operations and development
over the coming years.

 

The University Senate directs that its opinion be conveyed
to the President of the University for transmission to the
Board of Trustees.

The Chair recognized Professor Robert Bostrom. Professor Bostrom, on behalf of
the Senate Council, recommended approval of the recommendation from the Senate
Library Committee. These recommendations were circulated to members of the University
Senate under date of August 3l, l983.

The floor was opened for questions and comments. Professor Rea asked that ”journals“
be added to 3B in the ”Catch Up“ along with volumes. Professor Smith asked the senate
to accept the Library Committee's report and assume that the leadership would make the
corrections. The previous question was moved and passed. The motion in favor of the
recommendations, with the editorial change, passed unanimously and reads as follows:

Recommendations:

l) That the book budget for the Libraries be put on a re-
curring basis at the earliest possible date. (Of the
total anticipated budget for l982—83 only 39% is on a
recurring basis.)

The overall level of funding for the Library System
needs to be increased. (In this regard, the Report
noted:

a) Only 6 of 43 Southern Colleges and Universities re—
porting the ratio of library expenditures to total
expenditures of institutions on the chart in
Appendix C fall below the University of Kentucky.

The University of Kentucky ranks 48th on the list
of lOl ARL North American libraries, but fell from
45th in l980-8l and 42d the year before (l979—80).

The University of Kentucky currently is 70 posi-
tions below the benchmark average in FTE staffing;
the collection size is 600,486 volumes below the
benchmark average, and the total budget $l,235,977
below the benchmark average.)

In order to carry out recommendation two above, the
Committee recommends that:

a) The staffing level be raised to at least the bench—
mark average. (To do this over a 5—year period would
require about $l20,000 a year for l4 FTE positions
per year.)

 

 -11-

“Catch—up” collection development funds be provided to
allow the Library to reach the benchmark average over a
5-year period. (This would entail the addition of
approximately l20,000 “catch—up” volumes and journals
per year for five years at a cost of approximately
$2,000,000 each year. This assumes a current acquisi-
tions rate equivalent to the benchmark average.)

That other major needs of the Library System be considered
immediately:

a) The automation 9f_processing services. (The Committee
was pleased to learn the University has earmarked
$250,000 non—recurring funds for automation purposes
in FY l983-84.)

b) Eguipment needs. (Compact shelving, the installation
of security systems in the branches, and patron seat—
ing are among the highest priorities.)

c) Long-range space needs 9f_the Library System. The
Southern Association recommended that ”a long-range
planni