xt7gms3k0z7s https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dipstest/xt7gms3k0z7s/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1974-04-22  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, April 22, 1974 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 22, 1974 1974 1974-04-22 2020 true xt7gms3k0z7s section xt7gms3k0z7s      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
   
   

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL 22, 1974 3770

l The University Senate met in special session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, April 22,
J 1974, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Stanford Smith presided. Members
ea” absent: Lawrence A. Allen, Harry H. Bailey*, John G. Banwell*, Harry Barnard*, Charles
fll- E. Barnhart, Robert*P. Belin*, Robert S. Benton*, Norman H. Binger, Ben W. Black,
Peter P. Bosomworth , Thomas W. Brehm*, Charles L. Brindel, Sam Brown*, Herbert Bruce*,
l James D. Buckholtz", Collins W. Burnett, Jamie Chase*, Thomas F. Connelly*, Clifford
J. Cremers*, Vincent Davis*, Patrick P. DeLuca*, George W. Denemark*, Stephen Diachun*,
‘ Anthony Eardley, W. W. Ecton*, Roger Eichhorn*, Robert 0. Evans*, Elizabeth Finkenstaedt,
. James Flegle*, Juanita Fleming*, Thomas R. Ford, Lawrence E. Forgy*, James E. Funk*,
R. Fletcher Gabbard*, Art Gallaher*, John G. Gattozzi*, E. Milton Gellin*, Hans Gesund*,
{ Richard E. Gift*, George W. Gunther, Jack B. Hall, Joseph Hamburg, Thomas Hansbroughfi
I J. Merrell Hansen, George W. Hardy*, Virgil W. Hays, Ron Hill, Sara Holroyd*, Raymond
R. Hornback, Eugene Huff*, Charles W. Hultman*, Raymon D. Johnson*, James D. Kemp*,
William F. Kenkel*, E. Barrie Kenney, Paul K. Kim*, James B. Kincheloe, Don Kirkendall*,
Robert A. Kuehne, Walter G. Langlois, David L. Larimore*, Robert L. Lester*, Gene P.
Lewis, Arthur Lieber*, James W. Little, Marion E. McKenna*, Michael P. McQuillen*,
William G. Moody*, Vernon A. Musselman, Harold F. Parks*, William K. Plucknett, James
Y A. Prestridge, Frank J. Rizzo*, Paul G. Sears*, Otis A. Singletary*, Herbert W. Sorenson*,
Qgs Robert H. Spedding*, Earl L. Steele*, Marjorie S. Stewart, William J. Stober, Andy
“ Strickland, Willis A. Sutton*, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Lawrence X. Tarpey, Paul A.
1 Thornton, S. Sidney Ulmer*, Jacinto J. Vazquez, Harwin L. Voss*, William F. Wagner*,
John N. Walker*, M. Stanley Wall, Jesse L. Weil, Daniel L. Weiss*, Bruce H. Westley,
} Miroslava B. Winer*, Ernest F. Witte*, Fred Zechman*.

The minutes of April 8, 1974 were approved as circulated.

widow of Professor Estel B. Penrod, deceased.

 

April 6, 1974 f a};

\ Chairman Smith read the following note of appreciation from Mrs. E. B. Penrod, I l
r

l Dr. Elbert W. Ockerman

‘ Secretary, University Senate

i Dear Dr. Ockerman:

figfia Thank you for sending me the fine tribute by the University Senate
to my late husband, Professor Estel B. Penrod.

My appreciation and gratitude goes to the members of this distinguished ' i
4 group who took the-time, and had the consideration to document this
) heartfelt resolution. I shall cherish it always. Thank you again.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Martha M. Penrod (Mrs. E. B.)

l The Chairman made the following announcements and comments as Chairman of the
, Senate Council.

‘l The Council has scheduled another called meeting of the Senate for Monday,
‘&%‘ May 6, 1974, at 3:00 p.m. in the Court Room of the Law Building. This is a i
“3‘ provisional call. We will have the meeting if we need it. If we are sufficiently I ;
expeditious in our meeting today so that we do not need another meeting on May 6 '
I will be most happy to send you a notice canceling that meeting.

*Absence explained

   
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes of the University Senate, April 22, 1974 — cont

 
 
     

 

I

l
1

1

A few meetings ago this body approved candidates for honorary degrees. We.

have recently received a request from one of those degree recipients
that the honorary degree bear the particular name, the maiden name and
pen name, under which all of the work for which that recipient is being
honored, was done. The Senate Council, on your behalf, and the Board of
Trustees, have concurred in this change so that subsequent publicity

and the actual degree, when awarded, will be under a slightly different
name.

I would also like to report to you that the Academic Ombudsman's
Search Committee has completed its work and has reported its recommendations
to the President. He informs me that there will be appropriate announcements
forthcoming shortly.

I noted in our recommendations and comments last time that all of the
items contained in the Lowitt Report had been submitted to the President
and that these had been, in large measure, accepted. I would report to
you now that these have been codified in the Administrative Regulations.
That codification was done by Dr. Paul Sears, reviewed by me, and
accepted and approved by the President. These are now part of the
Administrative Regulations effective July 1, 1974 and will be circulated
to all appropriate people shortly.

At the last Senate meeting, in the course of discussion on the Krislov
Report, considerable attention and debate were called to the possibility of
separating the granting of tenure and promotion. At that time I indicated
to you that if the material then on the floor was withdrawn, I would place
the subject on the agenda for the next Coucil meeting. That was done, the
Council considered the matter, and decided that since there was considerable
interest in the area, it deserved appropriate detailed study, as Vice
President Cochran had suggested it received. As a result of that, and
with no suitable standing committee to deal with this subject existing, the
Senate Council has appointed an ad_hgg Committee to study the separation
of promotion and tenure. The Committee will be chaired by Professor
Dallas High and will consist of Vice President Cochran, Professors Goldman,
Gesund, Rudnick, Krislov, and Yanarella. That Committee has been charged
to begin its deliberations now, finish them early in the fall, and,
hopefully, report to the Senate in time for action in October or November.
Practically, that means that we may get done with it next year.

The elections of senators for the coming year have been completed by
the student body and by the faculty. The President and the Senate Council
office have been notified of these elections and if anybody is interested
in which people were elected, vote counts, or other information, it is
available in the Senate Council office.

I have taken the Opportunity of reporting the activities of the Senate
Council to you at each of these meetings. Since it has only been two weeks
since the last Senate meeting, there has been relatively little activity,
at least in terms of reportable material. Most of the activity has consisted
of getting all of the items on the agenda, out to you. We also had a meeting
with President Singletary in which he reviewed a number of items with us,
one of which you may be interested in. The Governing Regulations and
the Administrative Regulations require that faculties of colleges, community

colleges, SChOOlS, departments, at cetera, be organized and have an appropriate

/

gr»

IE
I
‘2

l
1
i

 

    
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
    

[its

r
u
1

Minutes of the University Senate, April 22, 1974 — cont 3772

committee structure and that these bodies have provision for appropriate

student input. The President has issued a memorandum to all Vice Presidents,

Deans, Directors, and Department Chairmen, and others having authority over
educational units, both in the University and the Community College Systems,
requesting that they provide to his office and also to the appropriate
repositories designated in the Governing Regulations, the Rules 2f_£hg
University Senate, and the Administrative Regulations, copies of their
rules and their committee structure, no later than November 15, 1974.

Those rules and structures will be reviewed by the President's Office and
filed appropriately. In the rare event that some are found to be incon—
sistent or to have problems, then appropriate efforts will be taken. For
those groups which do not have rules or structures, we have lists available
of those bodies throughout the campus which do have appropriate rules, pro—

cedures, committee structures, et cetera, and you can consult them if you wish.

Finally, and essentially sort of a personal plea —— as a matter of
taste, public relations, and perhaps Stan Smith's concession to traditional
academe -— I would call your attention to the fact that graduation is
scheduled for Saturday, May 11, 1974 at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon in
the Coliseum. We will be graduating several thousand students. Many of
them will have parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands,
come to graduation. We will also, of course, be granting honorary degrees
and recognizing other award recipients. Most of us don't go to graduation
any more. After one has put on that hot bathrobe and hung the stuff around
his or her neck and drug oneself out at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon on
Saturday for ten, or fifteen, or thirty years in a row, it gets a little
grim. This is simply a plea that if you are not really hung up, why don't
you try and come anyhow. There are very few shows that the academicians
put on for the public. As a matter of fact, this is virtually the only
show that the academicians put on for the public. The football team, the
basketball team, everybody else puts on shows and sells the University
to the public. This is the one place where we, the faculty, can sell
the academic side of this institution. It has been embarrassing that an
institution with some 1,500 faculty members has a straggly 100 or 150 in
the academic procession which is written up in about five pages of the
program describing us and our garb. Suffice to say, your attendance and
participation in this one event for two hours out of the year, will be
appreciated, particularly by the parents and graduates.

The Chairman stated that the first item on the agenda is a Rules change

which was placed there so that it would be operative for the 1974 Spring
Semester final examination week. He then called on Ms. Constance P. Wilson,
Secretary of the Senate Council, who moved, on behalf of the standing Committee
on Admissions and Academic Standards, and the Senate Council, that the Rules

of the University Senate, Section V—9, 2.46 Final Examinations, be amended,

 

Effective immediately (not to be retroactive), as follows (This recommendation
was circulated to the faculty under date of April 17, 1974.):

If a final examination is to be given, it will be administered during
the examination period as scheduled by the Registrar for the semesters
of the regular school year. These examination periods will utilize the
last six days of each semester, and will be preceded by a study day or
weekend on which no classes or examinations will be scheduled.

 

1‘}
.4
i
4
i
i
31
, a
4

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3773 Minutes of the University Senate, April 22, 1974 — cont

Final examinations where appropriate, will be administered during
the last class day of the intersession and the summer session.

Final examinations may be given at times other than the regularly
scheduled time in the following instances:

(1) Faculty: In the case of conflicts or undue hardship for
an individual instructor, a final examination may be rescheduled
upon the recommendation of the chairman of the department and

with the concurrence of the dean of the college and the Registrar.

(2) Students:
a. Any student with more than three final examinations

scheduled on any one date shall be entitled to have the examination

for the class with the lowest catalog number rescheduled.
The option to reschedule must be exercised in writing to the
appropriate instructor two weeks prior to the last class meeting.

b. If an examination schedule conflict is created by
faculty rescheduling of an examination, the student shall
be entitled to take the rescheduled examination at another time
during the examination period by mutual agreement with the
instructor.

c. In the case of undue hardship for an individual
student, a final examination may be rescheduled by the
instructor.

The Chairman stated that this motion essentially changed the priorities
that a student has to have examinations rearranged and it has a debatable
clause at the front.

Dr. Thrailkill presented an amendment to paragraph (2) a., to replace the words
"the examination" in the middle of the first sentence with the phrase ”the
examination being held at a time other than during the three regular exam—
ination periods, rescheduled." and deleting the remainder of that sentence.

The last sentence in that paragraph would remain as proposed.

The Chairman stated that the procedure had been if a student had three or
more exams in one day, he was permitted to reschedule one of them; that the
Rule, as proposed would make it more than three finals, which is a deviation.
He stated further that the question in the past had been that of ”who moves?"
with the student being left to debate this problem; that the proposal is an
attempt to specify who moves.

The Senate disapproved the amendment.

Dr. Fisher presented an amendment to change the word "lowest” in the third
line of (2) a. to the word "highest".

The Senate approved this amendment.

On question by Dr. Reedy of whether the proposed Rules change would require
that a final examination be given in every course the Chairman responded that
the present Rules did not require this and that the proposed Rules change would
continue to give the individual instructor the option of determining whether

or not a final examination was appropriate for his particular course.

   
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
   
    
  
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
   
   

[
l
fl‘

\

as

   

4 _‘ v—A—rifi’.” ‘27“

m

Minutes of the University Senate, April 22, 1974 — cont 3774

A Senator presented an amendment to change the word ”three" in the first line
of (2) a. to the word "two".

The Senate approved this amendment.

A Senator expressed some concern regarding the phraseology in the paragraph
concerning the final examination for the intersession and the summer session.

Being unable, at the moment, to make an appropriate motion to amend that paragraph,
Chairman Smith suggested that he put together his proposal and submit it to the
Senate Council for transmittal to the Committee on Admissions and Academic
Standards, for rewriting.

The Senate then approved the proposed change in the Rules 9f_the University
Senate, Section V-9, 2.46 Final Examinations, as amended twice. That Section,
as amended, effective immediately (not to be retroactive), now reads:

 

If a final examination is to be given, it will be administered during
the examination period as scheduled by the Registrar for the semesters
of the regular school year. These examination periods will utilize the
last six days of each semester, and will be preceded by a study day or
weekend on which no classes or examinations will be scheduled.

Final examinations, where appropriate, will be administered during
the last class day of the intersession and the summer session.

Final examinations may be given at times other than the regularly
scheduled time in the following instances:

(1) Faculty: In the case of conflicts or undue hardship for I
an individual instructor, a final examination may be rescheduled 5
upon the recommendation of the chairman of the department and

with the concurrence of the dean of the college and the Registrar.

(2) Students:

a. Any student with more than two final examinations
scheduled on any one date shall be entitled to have the examination
for the class with the highest catalog number rescheduled. The
option to reschedule must be exercised in writing to the appropriate
instructor two weeks prior to the last class meeting.

b. If an examination schedule conflict is created by
faculty rescheduling of an examination, the student shall be
entitled to take the rescheduled examination at another time
during the examination period by mutual agreement with the
instructor.

c. In the case of undue hardship for an individual student,
a final examination may be rescheduled by the instructor.

The next order of business on the agenda became continued consideration of
the Krislov Report, namely amendment (2) of Recommendation 5.

The Chairman called on Ms. Wilson who moved to submit Recommendation 5, as cir-
culated under date of March 22, 1974, and amended by the Senate on April 8, 1974,
to the President for inclusion in the Administrative Regulations or other appropriate

implementation.

    
   
  
  
 
  
   
    
   
   
   
   
    
   
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
   
  
    
  
 

  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3775 Minutes of the University Senate, April 22, 1974 — cont

An amendment to amendment (2) had been handed to the Senators as they entered
the meeting and, being a second rank amendment, became the amendment on the
floor for consideration. This amendment, dated April 22, 1974, and submitted
by Professor Goldman and MI. Harrison, reads as follows:

The standards established by the department shall first be sub—
mitted to the Area Committee for recommendations, and then
transmitted through the appropriate academic Vice President to

the President for approval. This review of the established standards
shall be for the purpose of assuring that they are consistent with
the University's regulations and that they provide answers to the
four items posed in paragraph (1) of Recommendation 5.

A Senator stated that he thought it would be good for the Senate to be given
a description of how the present Area Committees system operates before
beginning the debate of specifics. The Chairman then read excerpts from the
Administrative Regulations and made comments as follows:

This is from the Administrative Regulations II—l.O—l, page 18, IX.

Academic Area Advisory Committees, subparagraph A. Purpose.
"The Academic Area Advisory Committees are established for the
purpose of providing the President with a systematic and broad base
of advisement from both faculty and administration on matters of
appointment, promotion and tenure." It then proceeds to list the
Area Committees in paragraph B. Paragraph C specifies the compo—
sition of Academic Area Advisory Committees and notes that the
membership of each Academic Area Advisory Committee will consist of
no fewer than five members appointed by the President, gt cetera.
Section D deals with selection. It says that it should have as
broad a representation as possible from the departments and colleges
it serves and that no department shall be represented by more than
one person, 23 cetera. It further goes on to state that "Any Area
Committee may recommend that the appropriate vice president appoint
ad Egg committees to handle cases requiring additional and expert

advice from people well qualified in the particular discipline involved.

Ad hoc committees will be discharged as soon as their reports are
submitted to the Area Committees. The Area Committees should acknow-
ledge the advice of the ad hoc committees in preparing their recom—

mendations to the appropriate vice president." It then proceeds to
list the ad hoc committees.

If you will look under Procedural Flow Chart on page 22 of the
Administrative Regulations II—l.O—l, an action is initiated by a
department chairman, goes to the Dean and the Vice President. The
Vice President reviews the proposed action for completeness and
forwards to the appropriate area committee. The area committee
recommends either approval or disapproval for a specific personnel
action. The area committee may request an ad hog committee, which
is appointed by the Vice President, for further evaluation of doc—
umentation and advice.
to approve or not to approve to the Vice President who proceeds to
communicate with the Dean and submit it to the President, gt cetera.

It then subsequently forwards its recommendations

     
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
   

 I

i
l
a

Minutes of the University Senate, April 22, 1974 — cont 3776

I have not served on an area committee so I can't tell you exactly
what letter the President has sent to them. I have heard them described
and, in general, the impression I received is that they are charged to
use the criteria specified in the Governing Regulations and Administrative
Regulations.

At the present time the area committees do not review broad policies
and procedures and document them or certify them, which is what is proposed
in this series of amendments, in essence.

On question of whether there was any provision to restrict as to criteria to
be applied, the Chairman responded that they are restricted by the Governing
Regulations and Administrative Regulations which specify, in very broad terms,
the criteria to be used for various ranks.

Vice President Cochran called attention to an exception, the Special Title Series,
which is contained in the Administrative Regulations, and which is developed
for a specific job description.

Vice President Cochran further stated that over the years they had attempted to
eliminate communication between the department chairmen and the area committees
and the deans and the area committees, to keep them isolated; and he would

suggest, that in order to continue this practice, the wording be changed in

the amendment to the amendment to read: ”The standards established by the depart—
ment shall be submitted to the Dean, the Vice President, and the Area Committee
for evaluation of recommendations, and the President for consideration and
approval . " Professor Goldman and Mr. Harrison accepted this change in the

amendment to the amendment.

Dr. Goldman emphasized that their proposed amendment to the amendment dealt with
criteria for promotion and tenure with respect to the normal professorial ranks
and was not applicable to the Special Title Series procedures.

Dean Royster stated that as he understood the amendment to the amendment, various
departments may submit their own standards in terms of criteria for promotion
and tenure.

Dr. Goldman responded that this was an accurate interpretation provided it was
emphasized that these standards had to conform with both the existing general
standards and the four items set forth in paragraph (1).

The Senate then approved the amendment to amendment (2) of Recommendation 5.
That amendment, as revised, and approved, reads:

The standards established by the department shall be submitted to

the Dean, the Vice President, and the Area Committee for evaluation

of recommendations, and the President for consideration and approval.
This review of the established standards shall be for the purpose

of assuring that they are consistent with the University's regulations
and that they provide answers to the four items posed in paragraph
(1), above.

The Senate moved to consideration of first rank amendment (2), submitted by
Professor Goldman and Mr. Harrison, to change paragraph (3) of Recommendation 5

to read as follows:

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes of the University Senate, April 22, 1974 - cont

(3) The standards set up by the department or educational unit

shall be used for three purposes: First, they shall be an internal
guide to the department in evaluating and advising its own

personnel. Secondly, they shall provide the basis upon which

the area review committee shall recommend whether the documentation
supports the proposed change in tenure status or rank. Thirdly,

they shall provide guidance for the appropriate administrative officers
in the advising, evaluating, and status change processes.

The Senate approved amendment (2) to change paragraph (3) of Recommendation 5.

The amendment on the floor became amendment (3) submitted by Dr. Goldman and
Mr. Harrison, to add a new paragraph (4) to Recommendation 5 to read:

(4) The area committee‘s function is to review the documentation
submitted in support of a recommendation for promotion or tenure
and to advise the submitting faculty and the appropriate admin-
istrative officers as to the nature of any deficiency which the
committee finds in that documentation based on the submitting
faculty's established standards for promotion and tenure.

Mr. Harrison stated that he and Dr. Goldman had agreed that this change was

a rather drastic one and one that changed fundmentally the present function of
the area committee; that they had agreed they would like to withdraw the amend-
ment and submit it to the Senate Council for appointment of an ad_h2£ committee
to reconsider the appropriate function of the area committee. The Chairman
responded that he would be pleased to accept the request and would submit it

to the Senate Council as requested. Following some further comments, the Chair
withdrew the motion in the interest of expediting business.

This placed the motion on the floor the main motion, namely Recommendation 5,
as amended.

Vice President Cochran stated that he would like to add one point of information
on the present procedures. He stated that he received almost routinely from
the area committee the statement of the reasons or the condition for reasoning,
which leads to the recommendation of the area committee; that if it is not
furnished, he asks for it and had always received it; that if the recommendation
of the area committee is contrary to the recommendation of the dean, this is
reported back to the dean for further comment or information before the final
recommendation is sent on to the President's Office.

Mr. Clement presented an amendment to Recommendation 5 to add a new subparagraph
(b) to paragraph (1) and to re—letter subparagraphs (b), (c), and (d) 52
(c), (d), and (e), new subparagraph (b) to read:

(b) The means for determining qualitative excellence of teaching.

Following discussion of the definition of ”qualitative excellence”, an amendment
to the amendment was proposed by Dr. Lienhard to remove the word "qualitative"
from the amendment. The Senate defeated this amendment to the amendment.

By a hand count of 50 to 34, the Senate then approved the amendment to add a

new subparagraph (b) to paragraph (1) and to re-letter the remaining subparagraphs
accordingly.

   
 
  
    
   
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
   
  
   
  
 
 
 
 
   
  
   
 
  
 

 

  
     
     

     
  
 
  
   
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
   
   
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
   
  
  
  
     

 

 

Minutes of the University Senate, April 22, 1974 — cont

 

3778

Professor Longyear presented a motion to amend new subparagraph (c) to change
the word "minimum" to the word "approximate" so that the paragraph would read:

(c) The approximate research requirements for promotion to
Associate Professor or Professor.

Following some discussion, the Senate voted to disapprove the substitution of
the work "approximate" for the word "minimum" in subparagraph (c).

Professor Reedy presented a motion to amend the new subparagraph (d) to sub-
stitute the words "the quality" for the words "qualitative excellence" so that

the subparagraph would read:

(d) The means for determining the quality of scholarship and
creative productivity in the discipline."

The Senate approved this amendment.
Professor Thrailkill presented a motion to amend new subparagraph (b) to sub—
stitute the words "the quality" for the words "qualitative excellence" so that
the subparagraph would read:

(b) The means for determining the quality of teaching.

The Senate approved this amendment.

Professor Sands presented a motion to amend Recommendation 5 to delete new
subparagraph (c) which reads:

(c) The minimum research requirements for promotion to Associate
Professor or Professor.

The Senate disapproved this motion.

Dr. Goldman called attention to the previously approved amendment to amendment
(2) of Recommendation 5 which referred to "the four items posed in paraglaph
(l). . .” and that this should be changed to "five items" in View of the newly
added subparagraph (b). The Chairman stated that that change would be made

without the necessity of a motion.

The Senate then voted to approve Recommendation 5, as amended, to the President
for inclusion in the Administrative Regulations or other appropriate implementation.

Recommendation 5, as amended and approved, reads as follows:

Recommendation 5: Defining Standards for Tenure

 

(1) Departments or individual educational units shall set up
reasonable standards of performance for their disciplines
which are consistent with the Governing Regulations and which
shall include the following:

(a) The normal balance between teaching, scholarship,
creative productivity, and service in the discipline.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes of the University Senate, April 22, 1974 — cont

(b) The means for determining quality of teaching.

(c) The minimum research requirements for promotion to
Associate Professor or Professor.

(d) The means for determining the quality of scholarship
and creative productivity in the discipline.

(e) The kinds of scholarship and creative productivity most
acceptable in the discipline.

(2) Individual departments or educational units shall obtain out-
side evidence that the standards set up by their departments are
those of their discipline in equivalent universities and not simply
those of the members of the department.

(3) The standards set up by the department or educational unit shall

be used for three purposes: First, they shall be an internal

guide to the department in evaluating and advising its own personnel.
Secondly, they shall provide the basis upon which the area review
committee shall recommend whether the documentation supports the

proposed change in tenure status or rank. Thirdly, they shall provide

guidance for the appropriate administrative officers in the advising,
evaluating, and status change processes.

The standards established by the department shall be submitted to
the Dean, the Vice President, and the Area Committee for evaluation
of recommendations, and the President for consideration and approval.
This review of the established standards shall be for the purpose

of assuring that they are consistent with the University's regulations

and that they provide answers to the five items posed in paragraph
(1) above.

At this point in the proceedings Dr. Clark Keating, who is retiring from the
University rose to speak to the function of the Senate. He stated that it
seemed that the Senators could not be made to realize that with the air con-
ditioning on, it was practically impossible to hear what was said on the

floor and that he could sympathize with the Recording Secretary in her

efforts to try to get the Senators to move to the front so their remarks

could be heard and recorded. He stated further that with approximately 110
people on the floor, the Senate's attempt to edit the document was attempting
to do the impossible; that he thought a good way to do would be to have the
document sent to the Senators to be read, corrected, and returned to the Senate
Council; then resubmit it to the Senators with all the editions; that he saw
no point in trying to edit the document on the floor; that there were too many

involved in the process as presently handled and it was tying up the business
of the Senate.

Dr. Keating received an ovation.

The Chairman called on Ms. Wilson who moved to submit the following recom-

mendation to the Rules Committee for inclusion in the Rules of the University
Senate. ___