xt7gb56d598x https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7gb56d598x/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1978-03-13  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, March 13, 1978 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 13, 1978 1978 1978-03-13 2020 true xt7gb56d598x section xt7gb56d598x UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
10 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

March 3, 1978

TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet on Monday, March 13, 1978 at 3:00 p. m.
in the Court Room of the Law Building.

AGENDA:

1) Approval of the minutes of the February 13, 1978 University
Senate meeting.

2) Chairman' 5 Remarks.

Action Items:

a) Recommendations dealing with administrative organization,
funding, schedules, and studies of the University Summer School
Program to be forwarded to the administration for appropriate
action. (Circulated under date of March 3, 1978.)

b) Report and recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee
on Course Numbering. (Circulated under date of March 3, 1978.)

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 UNIVERSITY OF" KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNClL
Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

March 3, 1978

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council

AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday,
March 13, 1978. Recommendations dealing with adminis—
trative organization, funding, schedules, and studies of
the University Summer School Program to be forwarded
to the administration for appropriate action.

On November 18, 1976 the then Chairman of the Senate Council estab-
lished an Ad Hoc Committee to Study the Summer School Program under
the Chairmanship of Dr. Stephen Langston. Members of the Committee
included Michael E. Adelstein, Joseph Buttram, Philip Cottell, John
Greenway, Joseph Gruber, Jean Pival, Wimberly Royster, Edgar Sagan,
Warren Walton, and James Wells. The final report of the Committee
was forwarded to Professor Constance Wilson, then Chairperson of

the Senate Council on October 7, 1977, with a summary of nine major
recommendations.

Dr. Langston made an oral report to the Senate on the Summer School
Report at the December 12, 1977 meeting of the Senate. These nine
recommendations are being forwarded to you for action at the March 13
meeting of the Senate. The recommendations deal with administrative
organization, funding, schedules, and studies, all of which would require
administrative action. The recommendations are being put to the Senate,
therefore, as statements of policy for Senate approval, to be presented
to the President for improvement of the Summer School Program. Please
refer to the Minutes of the December 12, 1977 Senate meeting for addi—
tional background for your consideration of these nine proposals. [An
excerpt of these Minutes follows. ]

Abstract: The committee was appointed in the 1976 Fall Semester and
charged to conduct a general review of the summer programs. In the
course of its investigations the committee interviewed academic deans,
the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the Director of Summer
Sessions. Each of the benchmark institutions was contacted in an effort
to compare UK's summer programs to those at comparable universities.

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNlTY UNIVERSITY

 

 Page 2
AgendaItem: Summer School Programs; March 13, 1978
March 3, 1978

A student survey was devised and mailed to just under 1, 000 students to
solicit their views of summer activities. Finally, staff members in the
Division of Student Affairs were asked to comment on the non-academic
services and programs available during the summer.

Generally, the committee found widespread dissatisfaction with both the
academic and extra curricular summer programs. Academic deans
typically felt their programs are minimal at best and listed a variety of
obstacles to more effective programming. Members of the Student Af-
fairs staff, with the exception of those in the Counseling and Testing
Center and the University Placement Service, reported decreased levels
of programming and service in the summer.

Recommendations:

1) Regularize the administration of the academic programs of the sum-
mer session so that top administrators at each level are closely in-
volved in the summer program.

Regularize the budget process so that academic deans and depart—
ment Chairpersons have greater control over summer funds and
more timely notification of summer allocations.

Provide funding for experimental summer programming which is
not necessarily tied to enrollments or tuition income.

Initiate, on an experimental basis, a procedure through which
faculty members may exchange summer teaching for a reduced
teaching load during the academic year. The committee recog—
nizes that such a procedure will not be suitable in every depart—
ment and that many faculty members will not wish to participate
in such a plan.

Provide for systematic evaluation and review of summer programs
in terms of academic quality, breadth of offerings, and the extent
to which student needs are met.

If possible, publish the summer schedule of classes prior to ad-
vance registration for the spring semester. This recommendation
is designed to facilitate planning by the student.

Provide funding for extra curricular activities and student services
on a level commensurate with that during the academic year.

 

 Page 3
Agenda Item: Summer School Programs; March 13, 1978
March 3, 1978 '

8) Additional investigation into the needs of students for summer pro—
grams and services. Such investigations should be conducted by an
administrative unit with the necessary resources.

Remove, or increase, the present maximums on faculty stipends.

If the present limitations are retained, make provision for annual
increases.

Excerpt from University Senate Minutes: December 12, 1977:

 

Chairman Wilson presented Dr. Stephen Langston, Assistant Vice Presi—
dent for Continuing Education who gave a report on the Summer School
Program.

Assistant Vice President Langston spoke to the Senate as follows:
The ad hoc committee to study summer programs began meeting

last December, - December 18. I believe the last day of final exams.
We met during the spring semester, the summer, and the early part

of the fall semester to produce the report which has been forwarded
to the Senate Council.

In carrying out the charge assigned by former Senate Council chair-
person. Dr. Malcolm Jewell, the committee relied to some extent on the
knowledge of its members. In addition, we wrote benchmark institutions
to ask them sOme of the same questions we were trying to answer here
at UK. Various members of the committee interviewed academic deans
in the Division of Colleges to determine what they saw as major ob-
stacles to expanded and more imaginative summer programs. The
committee interviewed Dean Ockerman, who serves as Director of Sum-
mer Sessions and Vice President Cochran who is ultimately responsi-
ble for these programs. We did attempt to survey student opinion but
this effort was not successful because of problems with the question-
naire, its timing , and the sample of students chosen.

Let me briefly tell you what we found to be obstacles to expanded
summer programming.

According to the academic cleans the budget process for the summer
and current policies on enrollment minimums for classes have a serious
dampening effect on summer offerings. At present, classes at the lower
division level must enroll 15 students to be taught. At the upper divi-
sion and graduate levels the minimums are 10 and 5, respectively. In
the View of the deans these limitations , in effect, prohibit the offering
of experimental classes. I won't bore you with how the budget process
works, but deans feel they have little or no control over the budgets
allocated to their colleges.

 

 Page 4 _ .
Agenda Item: Summer School Programs; March 13, 1978
March 3, 1978

We asked Vice President Cochran his views on the matters of budget
process and enrollment limitations. He was of the opinion thatgpresent
procedures Should not have an inhibiting effect on programming. There
seems to be a basic disagreement or misunderstanding between the
academic vice president and the academic deans on this point.

Another obstacle mentioned by some of the deans was unwillingness
of faculty members to teach in the summer, particularly in those academic
units where extramural funding , professional practice , or external con-
sulting opportunities are abundant. To deal with this problem the
committee recommends that the University initiate, on an experimental
basis, a process through which faculty members may perform part of
their academic year teaching assignment during the summer.

We checked with the Dean of the Graduate School to find out if such a
practice would reduce a faculty member's eligibility for extramural
research funding. Apparently it would not. We also asked Vice
President Cochran whether University regulations would prohibit such
"trade-offs. " There could be difficulties in this area. but the obstacles
are not insurmountable .

The committee uncovered a few other problems which impair
summer programming, but, in our view, the primary reason the summer
session has not grown is that it has been a low priority item in the
university. The summer school has not been a topic of extended dis-
cussion among academic deans nor between the deans and the academic
vice president. Compounding this problem is the fact that most depart-
ment Chairpersons are on academic year appointments and are not
available during the summer.

The number one recommendation - or conclusion, of the committee
is that concerted efforts by the academic vice president, the deans and
department Chairpersons are necessary if the University is to have
summer programming commensurate with that of the academic year.
Higher priority must be given to summer programs and budgetary and
administrative procedures must be regularized.

Briefly. here are some of the other recommendations of the committee.

Provide funding for experimental summer programming
which is not necessarily tied to enrollments or tuition income.

Provide for systematic evaluation and review of summer pro-
grams in terms of academic quality, breadth of offerings , and
the extent to which student needs are met.

if possible. publish the summer schedule of classes prior
to advance registration for the spring semester. This
recommendation is designed to facilitate planning by the
student.

 

 Page 5
Agenda Item: Summer School Programs: March 13, 1978 '
March 3, 1978

Provide funding for extra curricular activities and student
services on a level commensurate with that during the academic
year.

Additional investigation into the needs of students for summer
programs and services. Such investigationsshould be con-
ducted by an administrative unit with the necessary resources.

The committee discussed the problem of faculty compensation for summer
teaching because we had heard there was widespread dissatisfaction in
this area. Basically, the present policy provides that a faculty member
be paid 10% of the previous academic year salary for each three credit
course, with an upper limit of $1600 for lower division courses and $2000
for upper division or graduate classes. The committee recommends that
these upper limits be removed or increased to more realistic levels. If
the limits are retained, provision should be made for annual increases.

With regard to the "10% rule” the committee recommends that
strong consideration be given to increasing summer teaching stipends
from 1/10 to 1/9 of the academic year salary i_f_ the limitation on income
from research contracts is raised from the present 2/9 of the academic
year salary.

Assistant Vice President Langston was given an enthusiastic round of applause.

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, MARCH 13, 1978

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m. , Monday, March 13, 1978 ,
in the Court Room of the Law Building.

Paul Oberst, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Michael E. Adelstein*, Michael A. Baer, Harry H. Bailey*,
Charles E. Barnhart, John J. Bernardo, A. Edward Blackhurst*, Jack C. Blanton,
Joseph T. Burch, Gail Burrows*, Charles Byers*, W. Merle Carter, Patricia Cegelka*,
Donald B. Clapp, D. Kay C1awson*, Ronda S. Connaway*, Samuel F. Conti*, Marjorie
A. Crandall, Donald P. Cross*, Patrick P. DeLuca*, George W. Denemark*, William
H. Dennen’l‘, David E. Denton*, Donald F. Diedrich*, Ronald C. Dillehay*, Roland
Duell, Anthony Eardley, W. W. Ecton*, Roger Eichhorn, Jane M. Emanuel*, Calvin
Ernst, Donald A. Falace*, Chris Fetter, James E. Funk*, R. Fletcher Gabbard*,

Art Gallaher*, Alexander Gilchrist*, Abner Golden, Andrew J. Grimes*, Joseph

P. Guiltinan*, Joseph Hamburg, Raymond R. Hornback, Margaret W. Jones*, Michael
Kennedy, Robert W. Kiser, William B. Lacy*, Richard S. Levine*, Thomas P. Lewis,
Austin 5. Litvak*, William R. Markesbery*, Kenneth M. Martin*, Emanuel Mason,
Marion E. McKenna*, Ernest Middleton, Phillip W. Miller, George E. Mitchell*, Arthur
J. Nonneman*, Jacqueline A. Noonan*, Edward O'Hara*, Clayton Omvig*, Patti Owens,
Merrill W. Packer, Ronda S. Paul*, Alan R. Perreiah*, Steve Petrey*, Don Prather*,
Daniel R. Reedy*, JoAnn Rogers, Jim Rowe, Robert W. Rudd*, Ramona Rush*, Stanley
R. Saxe*, John S. Scarborough*, Rudolph Schrils, John Serkland*, D. Milton Shuffett*,
Gerard E. Silberstein*, Timothy W. Sineath, Otis A. Singletary*, A. H. Peter Skelland,
Tim Skinner, John T. Smith*, Lynn Spruill*, Anne Stiene-Martin*, John P. Strickland,
M. Stanley Wall, Marc J. Wallace*, John Wanat, J. Robert Wills, Constance P. Wilson*,
William G. Winter*

Motion was made, seconded and passed to suspend the ten-day circulation rule in order
to consider the items on the agenda.

The minutes of the regular meeting of February 13, 1978, were accepted as circulated.
SUMMARY:
Action Items
A. Recommendations dealing with administrative organization, funding, schedules,
and studies of the University Summer School Program to be forwarded to the
administration for appropriate action. (Circulated under date of March 3, 1978.)
Motion passed.
Report and recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee on Course Numbering.
(Circulated under date of March 3, 1978.)
Motion passed.
II. Senate Council Activities and Informational Items

A. Professor Constance P. Wilson Elected to Board of Trustees

*Abs ence explaine d

 

 -2-
SAC (Student Advisory Council) Groups
Student Evaluation of Teaching
Meeting Concerning Hospitalization—Major Medical Benefits, March 14

E. Faculty Recognition Dinner, April 10

F. Consideration of Appointment of Ad Hoc Committee on Committee Structure

Chairman Oberst summarized the Senate Council activities and informational items
as follows;

Professor Constance P. Wilson was elected for a three-year term beginning July 1,
1978, to the Board of Trustees.

The Senate Council has discussed the SAC (Student Advisory Council) Groups and
has voted to ask the Senate Student Affairs Committee to proceed with their study
and report to the Council and to the Senate as soon as possible.

The Senate Council has had under consideration the matter of student evaluation of
teaching. The Council agreed that it would ask the Senate Committee on Teaching ,
Learning and Advising to take a new look at the student evaluation process as it is
actually operating. The Chairman urged any Departments or Colleges who have
something to add to get in touch with Donald Cross who is the Chairman of the
Teaching, Learning and Advising Committee or with the Senate Council.

There is an open meeting concerning Hospitalization—Major Medical benefits ,
March 14, 3: 30 p.m. , Chemistry-Physics Building, Room 139.

The Faculty Recognition Dinner is April 10 at the Lafayette Club. Mr. Charles
Atcher is the Chairman. There are 17 members of the faculty retiring. The
Chairman urged the Senate members to participate, particularly if there were
members of their departments retiring.

The Kernel reported that the Senate Council is considering the appointment of an
Ad Hoc Committee on the committee structure of the Senate. The Council does
propose to do that, but the committee has not yet been appointed.

The first action item on the agenda was the recommendations dealing with administrative
organization, funding, schedules , and studies of the University Summer School Program .

Chairman Oberst recognized Professor John Lienhard. On behalf of the Senate Council
Professor Lienhard presented a motion recommending that nine recommendations dealing with
administrative organization, funding, schedules, and studies of the University Summer School
Program to be forwarded to the administration for appropriate action. This was circulated
to members of the University Senate under date of March 3, 1978, and reads as follows:

 

 -3-

Abstract: The committee was appointed in the 1976 Fall Semester and
charged to conduct a general review of the summer programs. In the
course of its investigations the committee interviewed academic deans,
the Vice President for Academic Affairs , and the Director of Summer
Sessions. Each of the benchmark institutions was contacted in an effort
to compare UK's summer programs to those at comparable universities.

A student survey was devised and mailed to just under 1,000 students ‘
to solicit their Views of summer activities. Finally, staff members in the
Division of Student Affairs were asked to comment on the non—academic
services and programs available during the summer.

Generally, the committee found widespread dissatisfaction with both the
academic and extra curricular summer programs. Academic deans
typically felt their programs are minimal at best and listed a variety of
obstacles to more effective programming. Members of the Student Affairs
staff, with the exception of those in the Counseling and Testing Center
and the University Placement Service , reported decreased levels of
programming and service in the summer.

Recommendations:

Regularize the administration of the academic programs of the summer
session so that top administrators at each level are closely involved
in the summer program.

Regularize the budget process so that academic deans and department
Chairpersons have greater control over summer funds and more timely
notification of summer allocations .

Provide funding for experimental summer programming which is not
necessarily tied to enrollments or tuition income.

Initiate, on an experimental basis, a procedure through which faculty
members may exchange summer teaching for a reduced teaching load
during the academic year. The committee recognizes that such a pro-
cedure will not be suitable in every department and that many faculty
members will not wish to participate in such a plan.

Provide for systematic evaluation and review of summer programs in
terms of academic quality, breadth of offerings, and the extent to
which student needs are met.

If possible, publish the summer schedule of classes prior to advance
registration for the spring semester. This recommendation is designed
to facilitate planning by the student.

Provide funding for extra curricular activities and student services on
a level commensurate with that during the academic year.

‘0V61"‘

 

 -4-

Additional investigation into the needs of students for summer programs
and services . Such investigations should be conducted by an administra—
tive unit with the necessary resources.

Remove, or increase, the present maximums on faculty stipends. If the
present limitations are retained, make provision for annual increases.

Student Senator Benson moved to table the motion until the next Senate meeting.
The motion was defeated with a hand count of 52 to 30.
The floor was opened for discussion and questions.

Professor Diachun said that he was not clear about the motion. He asked if it was a
recommendation from the Senate Council.

Chairman Oberst said that it came with the unanimous recommendation of the Senate
Council.

Professor Kemp asked where the funds were coming from and if they were coming from
other budgetary items.

Chairman Oberst said that he assumed that was a question only the administration could
answer after the administration had decided to do any of those things.

’ Dr. Jewell said that he didn' t want to read anything into what the Committee had said
but that the proposal would give colleges more flexibility and the possibility of scheduling
more of their courses in the summer.

Chairman Oberst said that he thought there were two other items that would bear on it.
One was item two and the other was item three.

Professor Longyear said that there were two kinds of graduate students that would be
favorably affected by the increase in the summer program--those who are teaching assistants
and need to take courses and those who had already completed their residence and were hold-
ing teaching positions.

The vote on the motion passed.

Chairman Oberst recognized Professor John Lienhard. On behalf of the Senate Council
Professor Lienhard presented a motion on the report and recommendation from the Ad Hoc
Committee on Course Numbering. This was circulated to members of the University Senate
under date of March 3, 1978, and reads as follows:

Background:

The ad hoc Committee on Course Numbering was set up March 29, 1977 by
Chairman Constance Wilson. Professor Malcolm Jewell was named chairW

 

 -5-

of the committee and members were W. C. Royster , John Stephenson,

T. Richard Robe, and John Robertson. The Committee decided to con-
centrate solely on the 400 and 500 level courses, but in the final report

it suggested a slight change in the Rules regarding 200 level courses also.

The report was approved by the Senate Council in November, 1977 and
is submitted to the Senate for approval of the report and of the changes
in Senate Rules necessary to implement it, as set out in the report.

Recommendations:

We recommend that the 400 category be changed by providing that
the letter G be placed after the number of those 400 courses to
carry graduate credit for non—majors . The remaining 400 level
courses would be strictly undergraduate. This would permit de-
partments to make a distinction between 300 and 400 courses. To
implement this , each department with 400 level courses would be
asked to notify the Graduate Council about which of these it wanted
to place in the 400G category.

We do not recommend any change in the Senate rules concerning

the 500 category of courses. We do recommend that departments that
use the 500 category for courses that are taken primarily by under-
graduates be asked to review these courses and determine whether
they wish to change any of them to 300 or 400 level courses. Al-
though such a change is not in the category of "minor changes, " we
suggest that departmental proposals for such changes be treated
expeditiously.

Although our specific responsibilities were limited to the 400 and
500 level courses , the Committee discussed what it perceived to be
another problem: a shortage of 100 level courses. It is our im-
pression that some departments permit freshmen (particularly

in the second semester) to take 200 level courses, but existing
rules make this appear difficult. It seemed to the Committee that
the instructor and the department involved should be able to judge
when a freshman ought to be able to take a 200 level course, with-
out the student having to get permission of his clean. If a de-
partment wanted to keep some or all of its 200 courses strictly
limited to non-freshman, it could specify this to its instructors.
Consequently we recommend changes in the rules to eliminate

the requirement that a student's dean approve if a freshman enrolls
in a 200 level course. This recommendation is made subject to
clearance with the deans of the appropriate colleges.

Rules Changes:

These recommendations, if adopted, would lead to the following changes
in Senate Rules (Section III):

 

 *6-
1.0 Change course numbering system as follows--

400-499 Prerequisite junior classification; gives undergraduate credit;
graduate credit for non-majors only if letter G appears after number.

 

200-299 Prerequisite sophomore classification or consent of instructor;
gives undergraduate credit only.

 

1.1a. Should read ~ "Freshmen and sophomores may be admitted to
courses numbered between 300-499 upon approval of the instructor and
the dean of the student's college. Such approval . . ."

3.0 Change ft.** at bottom of p. 34 to read: "The Graduate Council will
have courses numbered 400G-499G routed to it . . ."

The floor was opened for discussion and questions.
, Motion was made, seconded, and passed to consider the recommendations separately.
Professor Hanau said that under the present system the departments have five options

in which to make a distinction in their courses, and he was not convinced that a sixth was
needed.

Chairman Oberst asked Professor Jewell if he had any information as to what depart-
ments felt it was necessary.

Professor Jewell said that a survey was made of the departments to see how they handled
the 400 and 500 level courses. Various departments have adjusted to fit their own needs.

Professor Thrailkill said that it was cumbersome simply to add the "G" since now all
400 courses give graduate credit for students from other departments. He asked if it wouldn't
be simpler and less confusing to add a ”U" for the fewer non-graduate credit courses.

Professor Jewell said that he could see no difference between adding a "G" to those
admitting graduate students or a "U" to those that do not.

Professor Thrailkill asked if this meant that all 400 courses to add a "G" must now get
renewed approval from the Graduate Council.

Professor Jewell said that he assumed it was up to the Graduate Council whether or not
they want to review proposals by departments about classifying 400 courses as 400G.

Professor Lienhard said that we have a very workable existing system with our 400 and
500 level courses and that he hates to see it changed. He added, however, that this system
has failed since the Councils have not enforced it, and too much present usage on campus
is in Violation of it. Therefore, he supports the Change, eventhough it will result in a more
cumbersome system.

Dean Royster said that the Graduate Council has had over the last couple of years a
fairly sizeable number of 400 level courses which had been proposed to the Council and for

 

 __7_

which the department wanted restricted to seniors. He said there is hardly any way to keep
graduate students out of these courses unless there is some identification on the course
number to this effect.

Professor Jewell said there were about twenty departments in that situation. He added
that it does not necessarily mean they are bending the rule.

Dean Stephenson said that he agreed with John Lienhard that at this point we have an
inconsistency in the use of 400 numbers. He said that a large number of precedents has

been built up over the years for restricting that 400 level courses be for undergraduates only.

The vote on the first recommendation concerning the ”G" category added to the 400
level courses passed.

Chairman Oberst presented recommendation number two and asked for any discussion.

Professor Jewell said that the Committee in reviewing 500 courses found that there was
every conceivable interpretation of 500 level courses being used, whether one is talking about
master's or Ph.D. programs. Professor Jewell added that a part of the point of the recommen~
dation was that if departments wanted to do restructuring in numbering 500 courses primarily
taken by undergraduates , this would facilitate the process.

The vote on the second item passed.

The vote on the third item passed.

Dean Ockerman asked when the implementation date would be. He raised that question
because the schedule for the Summer Session has been printed since December, and the
schedule for the Fall 1978 is in the process of being printed. He said that it could not be
effectively implemented in terms of the publications until the Spring Semester.

Chairman Oberst said that the Implementation Date Will be January 1979 .
Chairman Oberst asked for any new business.

Professor Crosby requested that a supply of the Action Items be at the Senate Meeting
when they did not have the required circulation time.

Chairman Oberst said that was a good idea.
The meeting adjourned at 3: 50 p.m.

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary