xt7pnv99977z https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7pnv99977z/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1993-11-08  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, November 8, 1993 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 8, 1993 1993 1993-11-08 2020 true xt7pnv99977z section xt7pnv99977z UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
10 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 27 October 1993

TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,

;~ ,«J. .~ at 3:00 p. m. in ROOM 115 of the Nursing Building
(CON/HSLC)-
AGENDA:
1. Minutes: 20 September 1993 and 11 October 1993
Chair's Announcements
Resolutions
Academic Ombud Report: Professor Gretchen LaGodna
Action Items
a. Proposed change in the name of an educational unit,
submitted by the Department of Health, Physical Education
and Recreation, College of Education. (Circulated under
date of 26 October 1993.)
Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section 1,
distribution of University Senate minutes. (Circulated
under date of 26 October.)
Proposed changes to University Senate Rules, Section V, to

establish undergraduate midterm evaluations (circulated
under date of 27 October 1993).

 

Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section I,
apportionment. If approved, the proposal will be sent to
the administration as a change in the Governing
Regulations. (Circulated under date of 26 October 1993.5

 

FOR DISCUSSION ONLY: College of Arts and Sciences proposal for
Professional Review for Tenured Faculty. (Circulated under date
of 21 October 1993.)

Randall Dahl
Secretary

If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact Ms.
Susan Caldwell (7—7155) in advance. Thank you.

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, NOVEMBER 8, I993

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, November 8,
1993, in Room 115 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Daniel L. Fulks, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Debra Aaron*, Robert L. Blevins*, Peter P. Bosomworth,
Douglas A. Boyd, Joseph T. Burch, Lauretta Byars, Clyde R. Carpenter*, Ben W. Carr,
Edward A. Carter, Michael L. Cibull*, Donald B. Clapp, Jane Clark, Jordan L. Cohen,
Darby Cole, Georgia C. Collins*, Susan E. deCarvalho*, Joseph L. Fink, Juanita W.
Fleming*, Donald T. Frazier*, Michael B. Freeman*, Richard W. Furst, Joseph H.
Gardner, Lorraine Garkovich, Larry J. Grabau*, J. John Harris, Robert E. Hemenway,
Floyd J. Holler, Chester A. Holmquist, Edward J. Kasarskis*, Kenneth K. Kubota,
Thomas W. Lester, C. Oran Little, William C. Lubawy, Linda J. Magid, Martin J.
McMahon, James S. Mosbey, David A. Nash*, Anthony L. Newberry, Jacqueline Noonan*,
Barbara Phillips, Rhoda-Gale Pollack*, Deborah E. Powell*, Thomas C. Robinson,
Ellen B. ROSenman, David Shipley, Thomas J. Stipanowich, David H. Stockham, Michael
Stover, Amy Sullivan, Phillip A. Tibbs, Salvatore J. Turco*, Henry C. Vasconez*,
Mary Walker, Charles T. Wethington*, Brent White*, Eugene R. Williams, Emery A.
Wilson*, H. David Wilson*, Linda K. Worley*, Thomas R. Zentall.

The Chair welcomed eVeryone to the Nbvember l993 meeting of the University
Senate. .

The Chair stated the first item on the agenda was to approve the minutes from
the September 20, T993 meeting. There were no corrections to the minutes and they
were approved as circulated.

Chairman Fulks made the following announcements:

He hoped that everyone had been keeping track of what had been going on with
the Governor's Commission on Higher Education Review. He wanted to remind everyone
that the Senate Council will be hosting a breakfast meeting with the local
legislative representatives November l0, 1993 at 7:30 a.m. All of the local
representatives have RSVP'd that they would be in attendance with one exception.
They are looking forward to a good meeting. It has turned out to be very timely.
If anyone has any messages they would like to get to the legislators, please let
anyone from the Senate Council know. -

On November l7, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. there will be a meeting of Associate Deans.
This has been done in the past with Senate Councils. The people they are looking
for are the people who are involved with the academic advising in each college and
-the people involved in enforcing the Senate rules. These have proven to be really

good forums in the past for discussing issues which are common across colleges.
Please make sure your college is represented.

* Absence Excused

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November 8, 1993

The Chair stated he would like to discuss something that would be entered into
the minutes. Before long there would be elections, committee appointments, and
committee nominations. He wanted to review briefly the committee structure of the.
University and how committee appointments are made. They certainly wanted to make’
committee service available to anyone who has an interest and it is not limited
necessarily to members of the Senate. If anyone is aware of people within their
college or elsewhere that might be interested in serving on any of the committees,
please take advantage to nominate these people. Chairman Fulks' report on
Committee Nominations and Appointments reads as follows:

COMMITTEE NOMINATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS

I-l.4.l Structure of Senate Committees (US: 2/13/89)

~The UniverSIty Senate shall have four types of committees:
(l) standing committees of the Senate responsible only to
that body; (2) the University Studies Committee which
shall be chaired by and work with the Director of the
UniVersity Studies Program but shall submit all major
policies (as specified in l.4.4 below) to the Senate; (3)
advisory committees responsible in an advisory capacity to
the President and/or other administrative officers and to
the Senate; and (4) gg_hgg committees. '

 

The terms of office for faculty members of either the
standing committees or the University Studies committee
shall be three years. Student appointments shall be for one
year. All appointments shall be made by the Senate Council
for terms beginning on September l and staggered to provide
a one—third change in membership each year.

The number of members on each standing committee shall be
determined by the Senate Council. Chairs shall be appointed
by the Senate Council. The Chairs and at least one-half the
members of the committees shall be Senators, except as
otherwise specified. '

Senate Standing Committees: There are ll:

Rules and Elections Committee
Admissions and Academic Standards
Academic Facilities Committee
Library Committee

Research Committee

Academic Programs Committee
Academic Planning and Priorities
Academic Organization and Structure
Institutional Finances and Resource Allocation
Admissions Advisory Committee
University Studies Committee

When new Senators are elected each Spring, the Chair of the Senate
Council sends a letter to each with a request for them to fill out a
committee preference form-~for the Senate standing committees,

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November 8, l993

including University Studies --listing first, second, and third
choices. Those preferences are recorded and a Committee of the Senate
Council assigns specific Committees to each Senator. The Chairs for
the standing Committes are selected by the Chair of the Senate
Council. A list of all University Senate standing committee
assignments is then sent to all university faculty at the beginning of
the Fall Semester. '

In addition to new Senators being assigned to Committees, the Senate
Council recommends non—Senators who express an interest in a particular
area, or other non-Senators to represent a particular interest. (A '
good example of this is the Library Committee, on which we attempt to
have representatives from all colleges.) The Rules specify that the
Chair plus at least half the members of each committee must be Senators
unless otherwise specified. '

There are four Senate Advisory Committees:

Privilege and Tenure

Privilege and Tenure Hearing Panel
Prior Service Committee

Faculty Code Committee.

These committees function in an advisory capacity to the President
and/or other administrative officers and to the Senate. Their charges
are found in the Senate Rules (Section I) as well as in the
Administrative Regulations. Members must be at least Associate
Professors with tenure, and the Regulations recommended that members on
Prior Service have had prior experience on an area committee (eligible
to full professors only) This is not mandatory, however.

Advisory committee members are appointed by the President after
consultation with the Senate Council. The Senate Council generates a
list of nominations for these committees — at least two candidates for
every position to be filled - and forwards the list to the President
who makes the final selection.

The same selection process is used for the Academic Area Advisory
Committees, i.e., at least two names are forwarded to the President for
each position. The President then makes the selection. The
specifications (including composition) for the Area Committees are
outlined in the Administrative Regulations. For example, the Medical
Center Clinical Title Series requires that representatives from the
various units rotate so that no one group is under-represented For
Academic Area Advisory Committees, faculty must be full professors. It
is also a Senate Council policy not to recommend Department Chairs or
Directors.

Nominations for these and the advisory committees (plus nominations for
the Appeals Board and the Student Media Board) are requested by sending
a notice to all faculty members in the University by the Senate
Council. The notice is usually mailed in early December, with a
response deadline of the third week of January — or shortly after
school resumes after the semester break. Nominations may be submitted

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November 8, l993

by campus mail, telephone, or electronic mail. Nominations can be
anonymous. The Senate Council then directs its committee on committees
to select a slate of nominations which the Senate Council approves
prior to forwarding the list to the President in mid-February.

The Chair reported to the Senate that there had been a response from the
President on a resolution from the September 20, l993 Senate meeting. A resolution
was approved and forwarded to the President requesting a change in Administrative
Regulations concerning the appeals process for the faculty_member who has been
denied promotion at the college level from assistant to associate professor. The
the same process that is in place for associate to full professor was being
requested. The Chair read the response from the President. The President's
response reads as follows: -

October 26, 1993

Dr. Randall w. Dahl

Secretary of the University Senate
Registrar

ll Funkhouser Building

CAMPUS 0054

Dear Dr. Dahl:

I have carefully considered the Senate's recommendation to amend the
Administrative Regulations AR II—l.O-l, P. III-2, as stipulated in the
memo dated September 30, 1993. As you have indicated, I have reviewed
a similar recommendation before and continue to not accept it for the
following reasons:

l. The procedures in AR II—l.0-l have worked well over the
last several years. It is also feasible for an assistant
professor to appeal a decision not to promote and/or grant
tenure to the Chancellor/Vice President, the University
Senate Advisory Committee on Privilege and Tenure, and the
President.

I firmly believe we have a promotion process spelled out in
the Administrative Regulations that is fair to both our
junior and senior level faculty. The Dean of the College
should have a central role in decision making at critical
points in the development of college programs, including
decisions about the promotion of junior faculty.

I thank the Senate for calling the matter to my attention, but I
respectfully disagree with the recommended change.

Sincerely,

Charles T. Nethington, Jr.
President

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November 8, 1993

Professor Davy Jones (Graduate School) stated he doesn't feel the process
has worked well for people who have had tenure denied. They might disagree with
the President.

Chairman Fulks then introduced Professor Gretchen LaGodna, who finished her
second year as Academic Ombud this past June. Having served in that position
himself once he can tell the Senate that it is not an easy task and Dr. LaGodna
did it as well as anyone if not better. She was outstanding and her service is
appreciated.

Professor LaGodna's report follows:

l992-93 ACADEMIC OMBUD'S REPORT

 

This is the second time I have had the privilege of serving as the
University Academic Ombud and presenting this annual report. My prior experience
as Ombud in l990-91 was valuable in approaching the work of the office this past
year. In view of the strains being felt by all university communities at the
present time, I believe the role of the Academic'Ombud Services office is
especially critical.

The data alone are an inadequate reflection of the nature of problems
students bring to the office. The actual number of cases varied little from the
past several years, but many were of a complexity that required a great deal of
time on the part of many people to reach resolution. The cooperation of faculty,
. administrators and staff was essential in preventing the escalation of these
difficult cases. Other cases required only a listening ear of straight forward
advice. But for every student who sought help, the availability of the Academic
Ombud office served an important function.

PROBLEM AREAS

As in previous years, complaints of unfair evaluation/grades Were the most
frequent (85). While some of these complaints were found to be without basis,
others were satisfactorily resolved. Only three cases were forwarded to the‘
Appeals Board. In two of these cases the departmental action was up held and in
the third case, the student's appeal was affirmed. Even in cases in which the
Academic Ombud finds no merit, the student has the right to request a hearing by
the University Appeals Board. Five students chose to do so, and in four of these
cases, the Appeals Board agreed with the Academic Ombud's decision and refused to
hear the complaint.

In almost all cases, explicit grading criteria and procedures could have
prevented the disagreement. The importance of clear expectations early in the
course cannot be overemphasized. In courses where evaluation is a less precise
process, there is a particular need for procedures at the departmental level for
appealing grades.

Academic offenses of cheating and plagiarism continue to be far more common
than we would wish. Twelve students appealed either their guilt or the severity
of the sanction after being charged with offenses. The Appeals Board upheld the

departmental action in seven of these cases and reduced the sanctions in two.
Three cases are still pending. Many departments have made special efforts to

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November 8, 1993

inform and educate students about plagiarism in the academic setting. However,
the number of lower division students and international students who seem to have
little understanding of the concept indicates a need to review this issue in every
course taUght. ’

Cases classified as Progress/Promotion included problems of admission to
particular programs of study, meeting graduation requirements, dismissal from
program, and unavailability of required courses. Often, effective academic
advising or familiarity with university policies could have prevented these
conflicts. Diminishing resources seemed to play a part in many of these cases,
however. ' -

As Academic Ombud, I was particularly concerned with the graduate students
who sought our assistance this year. Forty—nine graduate students filed
complaints, up from l7 in 1988-89. By far, the most common kinds of problems
involved either grades or progression. Others included complaints of
discrimination, harassment, academic offenses and assignment of research or
teaching assistantships. Almost every case underscored the extremely vulnerable
position of graduate students in the system and the potential for exploitation or
neglect. A more detailed summary has been submitted to Dean Ready.

At this time of budgetary constraint and uncertainty, we all need to take
special steps to avoid conflict and misunderstandings. The Academic Ombud office
itself is under strain, having lost its staff assistant-position due to budget
cutbacks. We will continue to do our best to address problems in an objective,
timely and fair manner.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The one major recommendation from 1992-93 echoes those made for the previous
three years. There is a clear need to reassess the part time status and length of
appointment of the Academic Ombud. These terms, established twenty two years ago,
are no longer adequate to meet the volume and complexity of problems brought to
the office. ,

SUMMARY

It is my hope that the Academic Ombud Services office contributes in a
positive way to the overall climate of the campus community. I believe that the
faculty strive to create an environment that fosters and sustains intellectual and
personal growth. Most faculty go beyond what is required to support and assist
students in their learning. Occasionally these efforts break down and it is then
that our office may be able to continue to step in and assist faculty,
administration and students.

The experience of having twice served as Academic Ombud has always been eye
opening and certainly never dull. I owe a great debt of gratitude to my able
assistant, Ms. Michelle Sohner, without whom the job would be impossible. And I
now turn over the job to Professor Horst Schach to carry on.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November 8, 1993
STATISTICAL REPORT
l992-93

Number of Single Contacts '
(Telephone Calls/Referrals) ........................................ l,989

Number of Cases Handled .................................................. 239
NATURE OF COMPLAINTS

Academic Offenses ................................................ 27
Attendance ....................................................... l0
Discrimination E
Exams ........................................................ _ ..... 9
Grades 85
Instruction ...................................................... 31
Personal Problems ................................................ 3
Progress/Promotion ............................................... 60
University Policy ................................................ 9

Total 239
COLLEGE WHERE COMPLAINT ORIGINATED

Agriculture ......................................................
Allied Health ........................................ ' ............
Architecture
Arts and Sciences ................................................
Business and Economics ...........................................
Communications
Dentistry .......................... v ..............................
Education ........................................................
Engineering ................................................... .... 22
, Evening-Weekend ....................L .............................
Fine Arts ........................................................
Human Environmental Sciences .....................................
Law .................................................. ‘ ............
Library and Information Sciences .................................
Medicine .........................................................
Nursing ..........................................................
Pharmacy ....................; ....................................
Social Work ........ . ..............................................
Non—Applicable ...................................................

u—I
U‘lwwN-“OIUOXU‘IO

Total

N
(.0
k0

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November 8, I993

STUDENT'S COLLEGE

Agricuiture ......................................................
Allied Heaith ...................................... ' ..............
Architecture .....................................................
Arts and Sciences .................................... . ...........
Business and Economics ...........................................
Communications ., ...................................... ' ...........
Dentistry ........................................................
Education ........................................................
Engineering ...................... ,...........................,...
Evening/Weekend ; .................................................
Fine Arts ........................................................
Human Environmentai Sciences .....................................
Law .........................................., ...................
Library and Information Science ..................................
Medicine ...... ‘ .................................................. 4
Nursing .....................; ....................................
Pharmacy ......; ..................................................
Socia] Work

Non—Appiicabie ...................................................

Totai

CLASSIFICATION OF THE STUDENT

Freshmen

Sophomores .......................................................
Juniors

Seniors ..........................................................
Graduates -
Non-Degree .......................................................
Non—Applicabie ...................................................

Totai 239
CASES BY MONTH

Juiy, T992 ....................................................... 15
August, 1992 ..................................................... 23
September, 1992 .......................................; .......... 17
October, 1992 .................................................... 23
November, 1992 .............................. _ ..................... 21
December, 1992 ................................................... i8
January, 1993 .................................................... 27
February, 1993 ................................................... 17
March, 1993 ...................................................... 14
Aprii, i993 ...................................................... 22
May, 1993 .............................................. ‘ .......... 33
June, 1993 ....................................................... 9

Total 239

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November 8, 1993

4 YEAR COMPARISONS

Cases Handled _ Single Contacts

1992-93 239 1,989
1991-92 228 _ 1,232
1990—91 269 1,133
1989—90 _ 354 1 ,522

MOST FREQUENT COMPLAINTS

 

l989—90 ' 1990-91

Grades ' Grades ................
Exams ................. 33 Progress/Promotion ....
Common Exams ...; ...... ' 30 Academic Offenses

Academic Offenses ..... 23 Instruction ...........
Instruction ........... Zl Exams .................

l99l-92 1992—93

Grades ................ 75

Progress/Promotion .... 52 Progress/Promotion .... 60
Academic Offenses ..... - 39 Instruction ........... 3l
Instruction ........... l9 Academic Offenses ..... 27
Exams ...; ............. l4 Attendance ............ l0

The Chair thanked Professor LaGodna and asked the Senate to join him in
thanking her. Professor LaGodna was given a round of applause.

Chairman Fulks announced that the University Senate traditionally holds a
holiday receptibn for the Board of Trustees. The reception will be held
December l4, l993 from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. at the Faculty Club.

The Chair then recognized Professor Ray Cox, Chair—elect of the Senate
Council for the first action item. Professor Cox on behalf of the Senate
Council moved approval of the proposed-name change submitted by the Department
of Health, Physical Education and Recreation and the College of Education. The
item was circulated under the date of 26 October l993. The Chair stated that.
the proposal being submitted by the Senate Council needed no second.

Professor David Harmin (Physics) stated that as an outsider he sees the
rationale for the proposal but it strikes him as another one of those names that
no one is really sure what it means, where the previous name was pretty straight
forward.

Professor Rob Shapiro (Associate Dean) stated that Kinesiology is a term
that reflects the standard of the field. Reflecting the study of movement as a
move to a more content based approach to what is being taught by the department.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November 8, 1993

Professor Dan Reedy (Graduate School) said it might be well to note that
changes of an administrative unit do not necessarily mean that the degree
inventory is changed in terms of the degree title. If there is to be a
corresponding change that also needs to occur through the academic structure.
Chairman Fulks said that Professor Shapiro had been reminded of that.

The question was called. In a voice vote, the motion unanimously passed and
reads as follows:

The following request for a change in name has been received by the
Senate Council from the Department of Health, Physical Education and
Recreation and the College of Education. The Senate Council and the
senate Committee on Academic Organization and Structure recommend
approval.

Request:

It 15 requested that the Department of Health, Physical Education and
Recreation be changed in name to the Department of Kinesiology and Health
Promotion.

Background and Rationale:

This academic unit has undergone considerable change in recent years.
The undergraduate program in Recreation has been eliminated, and liaisons
have been formed across campus in sports medicine, physiology, and
preventive medicine. Approximately 50% of the unit's majors now choose
career paths other than the traditional physical education careers.
These career choices include exercise science or business options at the
undergraduate level and wellness, biomechanics, exercise physiology and
the traditional teaching options at the graduate level. In light of
these recent changes, the faculty and students of the unit believe this
to be the appropriate time for a change in name.

The Kinesiology term was chosen to reflect the fact that all study in the
unit concerns the moving human body. Kinesiology is defined as the study
of muscles and their movement. This is currently the accepted name in
the field that includes not only physical education but all the movement
sciences. The term health promotion reflects the unit's promotion of an
active healthy lifestyle, as indicated in the unit‘s mission statement.
The change would reflect not only the traditional health education but
the expansion into the priVate sector.

Effective Date:
If apprOVea the change will be forwarded to the President for appropriate
administrative action.

The Chair then recognized Professor Ray Cox for the next agenda item.
Professor Cox stated the second item was circulated under the date 27 October
l993. The item concerns distribution of minutes for the University Senate
meetings. The Senate Council recommends approval of this proposal. Professor
Fulks stated the proposal requires no second since it comes from the Senate Council.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November 8, 1993

Professor Ron Pen (Fine Arts) said that usually the minutes are about 23 pages
long. He would like to amend the proposal to include senators to receive a copy of
the minutes because he feels they need to be informed'and that Viewing them
electronically was a lot of screens. ProfeSsor Fulks stated that the amendment
would be to include on the mailing list of people who receive a hard copy all
members of the University Senate. The amendment to the motion passed in a voice
vote.

Professor Hans Gesund (Engineering) recalled that the Senate voted down a
similar motion about three or four years ago. He spoke against it then and he
speaks against it now. He feels there is a great deal of apathy among the faculty
about academic affairs. He doubts that very many faculty members will read 23
pages of electronic mail, he agrees with Professor Pen on that. Furthermore, there
are a good many faculty members who are not hooked up to electronic mail and it
will become virtually impossible for them to get a copy of the Senate Minutes.
They will disengage even further. He urges the Senate to vote against the item.
The Chair reminded Professor Gesund that any faculty member by calling the Senate
Council office, can get on a mailing list and receive a hard copy. Professor
Gesund said that apathy rained supreme. PrOfessor Fulks said they had tried to
accommodate those people who did not have electronic access.

Professor Virginia Davis—Nordin (Education) asked if every faculty member gets
the minutes on E-mail, whether they request them or not? The Chair stated that it
would be made available through View, not specific to an E—mail address.

Professor Davy Jones (Graduate School) said the last sentence stated written .
copies of the minutes will be made available by the Secretary of the Senate and
asked if that was what was being referred to when he said they could get on a
permanent mailing list. Professor Fulks answered yes.

In a voice vote the motion as amended passed and reads as follows:

The following recommendation is offered by the Rules Committee and
endorsed by University Senate Council for-amendment to the University
Senate Rules, Section I, concerning distribution of minutes of University
Senate Meetings.

Recommendation: SR 1.2.1 should be amended as follows: (delete
striEeovers; add underlined, bold type)

The minutes of the University Senate meetings shall be circulated to
chairs of all academic units, dll/Méhhéri/df/thé/MnirériitY/zénaté
dhfl/fd¢MTZY[/fifid/t¢ administrative offices that are concerned with
academic affairs,the Senator representative of the Association of
Emeriti faculty, and the office of the Student Government Association
by the Secretary of the Senate. Minutes shall also be made available on
a campus-wide basis electronically. Upon request, written copies of

the minutes will be made available by the Secretary of the Senate.

Background and Rationale: This is a cost saving measure.

Effective Date:' Immediate.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November 8, l993

The Chair recognized Professor Cox for the third action item. Professor Cox
stated the third item is a recommendation from the University Student Government
Association concerning midterm grades. It was distributed under the date of 27
October 1993. -The Senate Council recommends approval of this item. Chairman Fulks
stated that the Student Government Association came to the Senate Council with this
proposal August 1993. It was discussed with the Senate Council. The Senate
Council made a couple of recommendations and asked them to return to the SGA and
get a bill passed through the SGA and then return. They have done that.

The Chair introduced Ms. Amber Leigh, Vice-President of the Student Government
Association and Mr. Steven Dawahare, a Senator at Large. They have sponsored the
bill through the SGA.

Mr. Dawahare stated that Amber Leigh and himself would like to thank the Senate
for considering this item. This is something that they have been working on since
the end of last year. They have talked to numerous other universities and
benchmark institutions. They have done a lot of research, looked at a lot of
different ideas to make this as productive and as cheap as possible and get it to
the students as quickly as possible. He hopes everyone has had an opportunity to
look over exactly what they are proposing. He would like to go back and say one of
the reasons they planned to do this, it comes back to the retention rate that is
going on as well as students far behind their expectations. Ms. Hogan's office
gave them a lot of statistics. We are somewhere around 22% behind other benchmark
institutions on our retention rate from freshmen to the time they graduate. They
feel this is something that definitely needs to be better and they fee