xt7x0k26f42r https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7x0k26f42r/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1972-02-14 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, February 14, 1972 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 14, 1972 1972 1972-02-14 2020 true xt7x0k26f42r section xt7x0k26f42r I“ ’2'??:!‘:!"! amzmgst '---

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY 14, 1972

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, February 14,
1972 in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Flickinger presided. Members
absent: Staley F. Adams*, Arnold D. Albright, Lawrence A. Allen*, Kurt Anschel*,
Daniel S. Arnold*, Charles E. Barnhart, Henry H. Bauer*, Harmon C. Bickley*,
Harold R. Binkley*, Wesley J. Birge*, Harry M. Bohannan*, Garnett L. Bradford*,
Betty J. Brannan, Mary R. Brown, Lowell P. Bush, S. K. Chan*, Jose M. Concon*,

Ray H. Dutt*, Lawrence Forgy, Jr., James E. Funk*, George H. Gadbois*, Eugene B.
Gallagher*, Richard E. Gift*, Charles P. Graves, Jack E. Hall, Joseph Hamburg;
Jesse G. Harris*, Charles F. Haywood, Donald L. Hochstrasser*, Fred E. Justus*,
Don Kirkendall*, Bruce E. Langlois, Robert G. Lawson, Thomas J. Leonard*, Charles T.
‘ Lesshafft, Kathy Liedtke, Paul Mandelstam*, Roger M. McCoy*, William C. McCrary*,
/ Ernest P. McCutCheon*, George E. Mitchell*, Theodore H. Mueller*, Paul Oberst,
James R. 0gletree*, Albert W. Patrick*, J. W. Patterson*, Nancy J. Patton*, Curtis
Phipps*, Paul M. Pinney, Nicholas J. Pisacano, E. Douglas Rees*, Herbert G. Reid,
Virginia Rogers, Robert W. Rudd*, John S. Scarborough, Donald S. Shannon,
D. Milton Shuffett*, Otis A. Singletary*, Eugene J. Small*, Eldon D. Smith,

1 Raymond A. Smith*, Hugh A. Storrow*, Robert H. Stroup, Dennis D. Stuckey*, Timothy H.
~Tﬂ Taylor*, Nancy K. Totten*, John A. Via*, M. Stanley Wall, Charles A. Walton*,
‘ Ronald D. Weddle*, David R. Wekstein*, Harry E. Wheeler*, William R. Willard,

Joseph W. Wilson, Alfred D. Winer*, Miroslava B. Winer*, Ernest F. Witte*,
Kenneth R. Wright*, Robert G. Zumwinkle*.

The minutes of January 31, 1972 were approved as circulated with one
F correction to change the third paragraph on page four to "six candidates” in
' lines two and six.

\ Dr. Thomas B.’Stroup, Chairman of the Library Committee, presented a

report of that committee followed by a motion that the Senate adopt a resolution
for presentation to the Administration of the University. The Senate accepted
the annual report and approved the resolution, which had been given to them pre—
ceding the meeting, for presentation to the Administration. The report and

resolution follow:

I believe it was Herbert Riley who remarked wisely a few years ago

that nothing was wrong with the University libraries that dollars would

I believe the Senate Library Committee would agree with

I such observation. (Some of us might name other areas of the University's
activities wherein dollars might not suffice.) And dollars have been re—
cently forthcoming to remedy, in a year or two, the most obvious need of
the libraries: space-—addition to the plant. As you all know, funds are
available, plans are laid, bids have been made, contracts let, and work
will soon begin on the addition to the Margaret I. King Library. For

3 this accomplishment we all say, "Deo gratias et gratias tibi Singletary

et Forgy.” I understand that the bids have been sufficiently low to

allow funds for rehabilitating parts of M.I.K. Buying, processing,

binding, cataloging, archives, special collections, and exhibit gallery,

stacks, administrative offices, general work space, and even an art

library will be provided. Moving these out of the present building will

provide shelving for an additional 300,000 volumes and space for 700

additional readerS. For these provisions, however modest in view of the

,1 need, the University is duly grateful to those who have so wisely pro—

. Vided——and at a time when dollars are hard to come by.

not remedy.

*Absence explained

A Carl B. Cone*, Alfred L. Crabb, Glenwood L. Creech, Dan M. Daffron*, Stephen Diachun*,

4
1

”mm-I - ‘

.m- ‘ Hus} ‘ dimmhmm'
723 “

Minutes of the University Senate, February 14, 1972 — cont

The Library Committee are aware, however, of other needs than V
space. We solicit your interest and beg your indulgence for a little
while. Then we will ask your support of a resolution. 65%

‘13:?

As you all know, the libraries receive from time to time gifts
of books, manuscripts, papers from private donors, and money from the
Library Associates; as you may not all know, it has for some years re—
ceived funds from other non—state sources for special purposes. Title
IIA of the Higher Education Act has since 1968 contributed a total of
over $90,000 for the Law Library, the Agriculture Library, microfilms
of newspapers, musicological materials, and gaps in general collections.
These funds probably are no longer available. Similarly the National
Science Foundation has contributed nearly $45,000 for the improvement
of our mathematical library resources. These are no longer available.
Funds from private donors are often restricted, not to be used for
general purposes.

agencies, but we will stand a loss because of the increased and increas—
ing prices of books and periodicals. The cost of an average book rose
$3.00 between 1968 and 1970, and the cost of a subscription to an l
average periodical rose the same amount during the same period. The ‘
price of binding has increased proportionately: our library pays for .
binding $8,000 more this year than it did in 1969/70, an increase of a
about 8%. Similarly the cost of supplies has risen for our libraries [
by nearly 4% from 1969 to 1971. And at the very same time that
operations have grown, requiring more supplies, funds spent for
supplies have dropped from $59,373 in 1969/70 to $54,953 in 1970/71,
with only $54,272 budgeted for 1971/72. The average annual increase
for salaries has dropped from 9.1% in 1970/71 to a budgeted 4.2%

in 1971/72. For 1971/72 no funds were budgeted for equipment, making
it necessary for $52,160 to be allocated from non—recurring funds to
meet the severe need. There have been no regularly budgeted funds for ‘
equipment (i.e., shelving, microform cabinets, typewriters, etc.), a

serious matter considering that roughly $25,000 per year is needed. On .
occasion, book funds have had to be used for this purpose. €L%

Not only do we stand to lose from foundations and governmental agam
\ .

Now these reductions have occurred during a time when the student
body has increased by 10% and the faculty by 15%, during a time when
the circulation of books has been increasing by 15% per year—~at a
time when the backlog of uncatalogued books and periodicals has grown
to an estimated 14,000 volumes (not including thousands of uncatalogued
microforms all but unavailable to students and faculty), at a time
when no additions have been made to the professional staff of the I
libraries. (No additions to the staff have been made since 1968/69.)

These reductions in support have occurred at a time when many of the

university libraries with which we are often compared have been improving

their standing. For example, the University of Georgia has increased

its personnel from 155 to 214 in the last two years, ours from 135

to 163 in the last four. Its books budget was $1,335,906 in 1970/71, 1
whereas ours (with additions from non—recurring funds added) was

$876,791. (Georgia got nearly half a million dollars more for books

than we did.) Moreover their collection now surpasses ours by ten
thousand, whereas in 1968 ours surpassed theirs by more than a hundred
thousand. (One might observe: now, who wants to be compared to Georgia.)

‘ Minutes of the University Senate, February 14, 1972 — cont 3305

I What I have been trying to point out is that our library support
69%” has decreased at the very time when most it needs to be increased. To
9 take care of special and pressing needs at the very present our libraries

\ should employ librarians with specialized training in musicology, law,
foreign languages, reference, the sciences (mathematics, biology, and

A geology, especially), and they also need a map librarian. Our libraries

1 have for the last five years, moreover, consistently paid beginning

1 salaries to professional librarians below the national average. We have
noted that frequently new programs have been set up, even graduate programs,
without taking into consideration the library needs for such programs.
(At the present a program in African studies is being considered, another
in Latin American studies.) Library needs even for undergraduate work
in these fields would require a very considerable increase in funds for

l books and people. So much for a few of our needs.

{ You will have noticed that I have mentioned certain non—recurring
funds received from time to time to supplement budgeted library funds.
£3. For example, the book and binding fund for 1971/72 is $762,070 of
yWL which $300,000 were not budgeted but came from non—recurring funds.
l Similarily in 1970/71 only $462,068 were budgeted but $330,974 were
added to the book fund from non—recurring funds. For these funds, and
they are numerous, the Library is grateful, and we all say, "Benedicite
omnia opera de Bud Cochran.” Without them the University libraries could
‘ not keep going. But non—recurring funds may not always be depended on.
l Someday someone may not be so kind and regardful as in the past; some
day he might not come to the rescue or bail out the Director of Libraries.
I It would be far easier for the Director of Libraries to make plans if
he knew for certain a year or two in advance that he would have those
f funds with which to buy books, or to contract for supplies, or to hire
that brilliant and well—trained reference librarian.

[ The Committee understands that for the next biennium the budget

< request for libraries is the same number of dollars as that granted

for the present biennium. Such budget will not, of course, provide

In! for proper growth; it will indeed reduce by at least five per cent the

4%!” funds available to buy books and materials and by ten per cent our

‘i services——circulation, interlibrary loan, bibliographic searching,

' proper reading of shelves, reference etc. Besides, it makes no
provision for the care of the new addition which we hope will be in
use before the end of the next biennium.

In View of these conditions, your Committee moves that you adopt
the following resolution and have it presented to the AdministratiOn
of the University:

The University Senate highly commends the Administration
for providing the sorely needed addition to the Margaret I.
King Library and for moving swiftly towards its construction.
It recognizes with gratitude the wisdom of this move to en—
' courage and provide for the primary functions of the University.
5% In View of the increased calls for library services, however,
Al" and especially the vastly increased and increasing costs of books
3 and periodicals, the Senate requests that regular adjustments
be made in library appropriations consistent with the growth
in the student body, faculty and programs, to assure the libraries
I an adequate budget, One which will truly reflect the equivalent

3306 Minutes of the University Senate, February 14, 1972 — cont

value of the present funds now allowed for library uses.

The Chairman asked the Senate for a waiver of the 10—day circulation 5&5
rule so that it might consider the Report of the ad_hgg Committee on *?
Accelerated Programs, circulated to the faculty under date of February 2, 1
1972. The Senate concurred in this proposal. 4

The Chairman then called on Dr. Sheldon Rovin, Chairman of the ad hog {
Committee on Accelerated Programs, who reported that there had been a few
amendments proposed and that as they took up each Recommendation he would
read the proposed amendments. With the approval of the Senate Council, and 1
on behalf of the Committee, he then recommended approval of Recommendation
#1, COLLEGE LEVEL EXAMINATION PROGRAM, which reads as follows: 1

COLLEGE LEVEL EXAMINATION PROGRAM: The University Senate of 1
the University of Kentucky shall endorse and adopt the use of the

College Level Examination Program (CLEP) to the end that:

(I
(a) Any eligible student wishing to take a CLEP examination “11%

for credit shall be allowed to do so, or if a department

refuses to allow a CLEP examination to be taken in lieu of a

course or courses, it shall justify its refusal to the Dean

of Undergraduate Studies and Vice President for Academic Affairs 1
or Vice President for the Medical Center as appropriate. 1

(b) Credit shall be given to students obtaining a satisfactory
score on CLEP examinations. The respective departments shall
determine what scores are satisfactory and in which courses

the credit shall be given.

*(c) Any cost for the CLEP examination will be met by the applicant.
(d) Implementation of (a) and (b) shall include requiring depart—
ments to file a list of courses available under CLEP with the Dean

of Admissions and REgistrar.

The floor was thrown open for discussion and extensive debate followed.

In answer to a question of explanation of why justification for refusal
should be made to the Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Vice President for
Academic Affairs rather than the respective colleges, Dr. Rovin stated that
an amendment to make this change had been received. He then presented the
proposal to amend paragraph (a) to read:

(a) Any eligible student wishing to take a CLEP examination for

credit shall be allowed to do so, or if a department refuses to

allow a CLEP examination to be taken in lieu of a course or courses,

it shall justify its refusal to the Dean of the respective college

with copies to the Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Vice President

for Academic Affairs or Vice President for the Medical Center as 7

appropriate. fa
Jiér

7'CHave financial or administrative implications

<‘ﬁ>y ,—e L. - f c

. ”23’???" .ngneyrrglv-f', 9-H...”- ..~;.-_.»_-,.»..,...~: .v-b-‘l n73.12339- ”4.4., ”my”; 7 ~J_.j.‘,,._.,.,.l.,.4.1:,“ ‘ , ’i .. '.'-‘.".~ .n “1"2‘ 1'15”.“ "I f: .,'. H ‘ ‘

Minutes of the University Senate, February 14, 1972 — cont 3307

Call for the question was made and approved. The Senate then voted approval
of the amendment to paragraph (a).

Debate to this point had been centered on the position taken by a Senator that
he could not support the granting of credit for testing. Following continued
debate addressed to this position, motion was made to amend paragraph (a) tO'
remove the words ”for credit” from that paragraph: to change the first sentence

in paragraph (b) to read: (b) N3 credit shall be given to students obtaining a
satisfactory score on CLEP examinations but the results may be used to determine
advanced standing for the student.”, and to change the word ”credit" to

”examination” in the second sentence of (b).

Following expressions of objection to the amendment, question was called. The
Senate voted to call the question and then defeated the proposed amendment.

Question was again called to vote on Recommendation #1 as amended. The Senate
voted to approve call for the question following which it approved Recommendation
#1, as amended. That Recommendation, as amended, and approved, reads:

COLLEGE LEVEL EXAMINATION PROGRAM: The University Senate of the
University of Kentucky shall endorse and adopt the use of the College
Level Examination Program (CLEP) to the end that:

(a) Any eligible student wishing to take a CLEP examination for
credit shall be allowed to do so, or if a department refuses to
allow a CLEP examination to be taken in lieu of a course or courses,
it shall justify its refusal to the Dean of the respective college
with copies to the Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Vice President
for Academic Affairs or Vice President for the Medical Center as

appropriate.

(b) Credit shall be given to students obtaining a satisfactory
score on CLEP examinations. The respective departments shall
determine what scores are satisfactory and in which courses the
credit shall be given.

*(c) Any cost for the CLEP examination will be met by the applicant.

(d) Implementation of (a) and (b) shall include requiring depart—
ments to file a list of courses available under CLEP with the Dean

of Admissions and Registrar.

On behalf of the Committee, Dr. Rovin moved adoption of Recommendation #2
following which he presented a prOposed amendment which had been submitted to
the Committee. Recommendation #2, as circulated, reads:

COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMINATION BOARD ADVANCED PLACEMENT PROGRAM: The
University Senate shall expand the use of the CEEB—AP Program and grant
credit in all instances of its use as follows:

(a) The Registrar shall be authorized to grant credit for CEEB—AP
scores of 3 or better. In cases where these exams are not clearly
related to University courses, the Registrar shall consult with the
respective departments to determine the course and number of hours.

*Have financial or administrative implications

Minutes of the University Senate, February 14, 1972 — cont

(b) A department may authorize the Registrar to grant credit
for grades below 3 or allow credit for additional courses for
scores above 3.

7<(c) The Office of Admissions shall publicize acceptance of
CLEP and CEEB—AP in the Kentucky high schools as extensively.
as possible, and when feasible, make available materials for
students to study for this testing.

*(d) The program shall be utlilized in the Community Colleges
as extensively as possible.

(e) Implementation of CEEB—AP shall include requiring depart—
ment to file a list of courses available under CEEB—AP with
the Dean of Admissions and Registrar.

The proposed amendment which he presented was to change the first sentence
of (a) to read: ”The Registrar shall be authorized to grant credit for
CEEB—AP scores of 3 or better except where a department indicates that such
a score is insufficient in which case the department shall determine what
score is reguired."

Dean Royster, who had submitted the amendment to the Committee, stated that
the Committee's wording differed somewhat from what he had submitted. He
then read his amendment as follows:

(a) Each academic department may approve the use of a CEEB—AP
examination for credit in one or more of its courses. Each con—
cerned department shall file a statement of its policy on CEEB—AP
examinations with the dean of the college who will send to the
Dean of Admissions and Registrar the list of courses and accept—
able scores available under the Advanced Placement program.

On behalf of the Committee Dr. Rovin reported that Dr. Royster's wording was
acceptable, and it became the amendment on the floor. He stated that this
proposed amendment would replace (a), would negate the need for (b) and (e),
and would necessitate the renumbering of (c) and (d) to become (b) and (c).

Following discussion, question was called and the Senate voted to stop
debate on the amendment.

By a hand count of 50 to 32 the amendment was approved.

Recommendation #2, as amended, reads:

(a) Each academic department may approve the use of a CEEB—AP
examination for credit in one or more of its courses. Each
concerned department shall file a statement of its policy on
CEEB—AP examinations with the dean of the college who will send
to the Dean of Admissions and Registrar the list of courses and
acceptable scores available under the Advanced Placement program.

*(b) The Office of Admissions shall publicize acceptance of CLEP

*Have financial or administrative implications

al,,_ “—ﬁq'k‘ A__< 1“

ta‘w‘v'wxmmv‘tw-wﬁwwz“ :«1:.»