xt7m901zh10d https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dipstest/xt7m901zh10d/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1987-10-12  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 12, 1987 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 12, 1987 1987 1987-10-12 2020 true xt7m901zh10d section xt7m901zh10d I

LHWVERSHY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032
0

UNWERSWYSENATECOUNCK 1 October 1987
IO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
October 12, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. in ROOM 115 of the Nursing Building

(CON/HSLC).
AGENDA:
04" Minutes.
Resolutions.
Chairman's Announcements and Remarks.
ACTION ITEMS:
a. Proposed addition to University Senate Rules, Section V —

4.4.3, Professional Degrees. (Re-circulated under date of
23 September 1987.)

 

Proposed change in University‘ Senate Rules, Section I —
3.3.2, proposing additional Community College
representation on the Undergraduate Council and the
University Studies Committee. (Circulated under date of 29
September 1987.)

 

Consideration of the proposed reorganization in the College
of Dentistry-—a recommendation. from the University' Senate
to the administration. (Circulated under date of 2 October
1987.)

Randall Dahl
Secretary

Note: If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact Ms.
Martha Sutton (7-7155) in advance. Thank you.

/cet
1890C

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, OCTOBER 12, 1987

The University Senate met in regu1ar session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, October
12, 1987, in Room 115 of the Co11ege of Nursing/HeaTth Sciences Bui1ding.

Wi11iam E. Lyons, Chairman of the Senate Counci1, presided.

Members absent were: David A11en, David A1Tgood*, Roger B. Anderson,
Richard Angeio, James L. App1egate, Michae1 A. Baer*, Char1es E. Barnhart,
Raymond F. Betts, David Bingham*, G1enn C. B1omquist*, Tex Lee Boggs*, Jeffery
A. Born, Dar1a Botkin*, Ear1 Bowen, Ray M. Bowen, Caro1yn S. Bratt, G1en
Buckner, Joe Burch, D. A11an Butterfie1d, Roger CaTantone, Edward A. Carter,
Michae1 Cibu11, Richard R. CTayton, Dona1d Co1eman, Mary Sue CoTeman, Frederick
Danner, Leo S. Demski, Richard C. Domek, Jr.*, Nancy S. Dye, Mary E11en
Edmondson, Char1es E11inger, James Freeman*, Danie1 L. Fu1ks*, Richard w. Furst,
Art Ga11aher, Jr.*, Thomas C. Gray*, Andrew Grimes*, Zafar Hasan, Raymond R.
Hornback, Mehran Jahed*, David C. Johnson*, John J. Just, Lisa King*, Robert G.
Lawson, Dona1d Leigh*, GeraTd Lemons*, Linda Levstik*, Bruce A. Lucas, Marcus T.
McE11istrem, Martin J. McMahon*, Robert Murphy, David A. Nash*, Michae1 T.
NietzeT, Rosanne Pa1ermo, Antoinette P. Powe11*, Deborah E. Powe11*, Madhira
(Mike) D. Ram*, G. Kende11 Rice*, Thomas C. Robinson, John M. Rogers, David P.
Rose11e*, Nimber1y C. Royster*, Edgar L. Sagan, Dona1d E. Sands*, Kary1 N. Shaw,
Timothy w. Sineath*, MiChae1 G. Tearney*, Cyndi Weaver, James H. Ne11s*, Char1es
T. Nethington, CaroTyn A. Ni11iams*, Gene Wi11iams, Pau1 A. Wi11is*, Angene
Wi1son, N. Doug1as Wi150n, Peter Winograd, and Constance L. Wood.

ApprovaT of the Minutes of September 14, 1987, was postponed to a subsequent
Senate meeting.

The Chair made the fo11owing remarks and announcements:

”The Senate Counci1 is continuing with its series of
breakfasts with the Deans. We have had two sets of breakfasts--
the first one with deans from B & E , Education, and Socia1
Nork, etc. and a more recent one with the deans of Arts and
Sciences and the Graduate Schoo1, etc. We have one more
schedu1ed on October 20, and these wi11 be a11 the deans from
the Medica1 Center. These breakfasts are going quite we11. We
wi11 continue these through the year and wi11 schedu1e a meeting
with ChanceTTors in the near future. At the appropriate time we
wi11 have some breakfast meetings with the 1egisTative deTega—
tion from Fayette County. We wi11 try to do that in anticipa-
tion of the upcoming session of the Genera1 AssembTy. I think
the members of the Senate Counci1 as we11 as those who come to
the meetings find them usefuT and heTpfuT.

Let me remind you of a coup1e of things that are in the
pipe1ine that are 1ike1y to be coming your way. There are two
new degree proposa1s that are in the pipe1ine. One of them is a
bache1or's degree in art administration. The Senate Counci1 has
met on this, and we meet again this Wednesday on that particu1ar

*Absence expTained.

 

 -2-

issue. Should that be approved by the Senate Council, it will
be circulated to you and then on to the Council on Higher
Education. There is also the Ph.D. in Public Administration
that is currently in a Senate committee and should be coming for
Senate Council approval. Again, if that is approved by the
Senate Council, it will be coming to you by transmittal in the
very near future.

We have started to receive materials from Mac Jewell's
Rules Committee. What we hope to accomplish this year is to put
together the basis for an annotated set of Senate Rules. What
Mac is doing is incorporating into the Senate Rules the
decisions by various bodies that interpret that including the
Rules Committee so that at some point all of us ought to be able
to have available to us not only a statement of the Rules but
also a statement of varying interpretations of those Rules. I
think you will find it very helpful to you. There will 5 ,
however, some minor Rule changes. The Senate Council will look
at these documents to decide how these Rule changes can be
made. Most of them look like editorial types of changes, and we
will attempt to circulate them to the Senate to make sure
everything is o.k. There may be a couple of instances where we
will formally change Rules and those will be done by the formal
Rule change process. lhese will be coming your way in the very
near future.

Let me remind you that Ed Carter will be here for our

November Senate meeting to speak with us about an important sub—
ject, the budget. By that time there ought to be some communi-
cations, formal or informal, coming from Frankfort regarding the
Council on Higher Education's reaction to the biennial budget
request sent to the Council on Higher Education by the
University of Kentucky.

The Senate Council received a report from an ad hoc commit-
tee on the review of educational units that was chaired by Jesse
Harris. We have met with Jesse. We are contacting Chancellors
about their thoughts on some of the items that have come up over
the years regarding review of educational units. Most of you in
this room have been through these things at one time or anoth-
er. Ne will have some things to transmit to the Senate on that.

I hope that everyone remembers that we passed a rather
profound change in the "I" grade Rule at our last meeting.
Those of you who chair departments or who are deans received a
copy of a reminder from Randy Dahl. Get that word out to your
faculty and more importantly, to the students. I would like to
add, on behalf of the Senate Council, our hope that each of you
as Senators will try to encourage your department to get that
word to students. That Rule, as you know, becomes effective
this semester. Anyone who receives an "I" grade at the end of
this semester will be subject to this new rule, which effec-
tively means students will have up to one year, resolve that

incomElete or else it converts to an ”E.” I solicit our help
in ma ing sure that all students are aware of this Ru e. I hope

 

 that the students and the Kernel will help to get that word
out. There have been advertisements purchased by Randy Dahl's
office. On two different days he had an ad stating the new I
Grade Rule. '—

The chairman said that the first action item was on the agenda for the last
meeting, but because of the time spent on other matters at that meeting, the
item was carried over. Chairman Lyons recognized Professor Loys Mather
(Agriculture), Chair-elect of the Senate Council. Professor Mather, on behalf
of the Senate Council, moved adoption of the proposed addition to University
Senate Rules, Section V — 4.4.3, Professional Degrees. This item was
re-c1rculated under date of September 23, l987.

 

Professor Russell Groves (Architecture) proposed an amendment to add the
colleges of Architecture and Engineering to the list of colleges offering
professional degrees. The amendment was seconded by Professor Hans Gesund
(Engineering) and unanimously passed without discussion.

Professor John Rea (French) was disturbed by the blank check nature of the
motion. He pointed out that the proposed addition merely said students could
not be given a longer tenure requirement, and he wanted more clarification as to
what could and could not be done. Professor Gesund believed that curriculum
should speak to hours and not just course requirements. He felt there may be a
problem with accrediting agencies, not the Southern Association, but profes-
sional accrediting agencies. He said he did not believe that change in the
curriculum requirements implied changes in grade point averages. He felt the
proposed addition did not apply to students who are registered in the program
because they could be required to adhere to the new curriculum except for the
fact their tenure could not be increased.

Professor Louis Swift (University Studies) wanted to know if the proposal
constituted an exception to the rule that if a student already matriculating can
follow the old rule. Chairman Lyons said that in a sense it did. He said his
understanding was that (sometimes) courses are changed, but departments find it
impossible to teach the new and old curriculum simultaneously. Therefore,
students had to go the new route. The only assurance being given was that the
new route would not add additional time. For clarification Professor Mather
said that the proposal orginally came from the Ombudsman last year through the
Admissions and Academic Standards Committee. The present rule clearly states
the requirements for undergraduate and graduate students but silent regarding
the professional programs. Professor Jesse Neil (Physics and Astronomy) felt
there could be some conflict in the Rules because after the amendment just
adopted the students in Architecture and Engineering are fairly undergraduate
students. He wanted to know what Rule applied to the students in Architecture
and Engineering. Chairman Lyons said those students would become part of the
exception. Dr. Paul Sears (Special Assistant for Academic Affairs) requested
permission to speak. He said the motion under consideration was correct, but
the University has only four professional degree programs. Architecture and
Engineering are not professional degree programs. Professor Gesund said that
Architecture and Engineering may not be in the University statement; however,
Architecture and Pharmacy have a five-year bachelors degree and he failed to see
the distinction. He did not think there was a department in Engineering that
required less than l32 hours for a degree. Dr. Sears said that the Council on
Higher Education viewed only four professional degrees. The Chair said the
University Senate Rules recognized only Law, Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmacy

 

 and defined a professional degree as one in which a substantial portion of
course work involved 800 and 900 level courses. Professor Gesund said
Architecture taught entirely 800 and 900 level courses. Dr. Peter Bosomworth
(Chancellor for the Medical Center) said that there was a distinction in
Pharmacy in that the baccalaureate degree is not a professional degree. The
Phar. D. degree is the professional degree in the College of Pharmacy.

Professor Dean Jose Oubrerie (Architecture) pointed out that the language in the
rationale made no statement on graduate or undergraduate degrees, but referred
rather to professional programs and then looked to external definitions of
professional programs, one of which and perhaps the most significant is the
definition used by the State Registration Board for Architects in Kentucky and
most other states which recognizes the degree from the College of Architecture
as the first professional degree being required for students to enter the intern
process consisting of no fewer than three years prior to being qualified to take
the registration exam. It seemed clear to him from the outside, given the
expectations placed by the State Registration Board, that indeed the college had
a professional degree. Professor Gesund said Engineering had exactly the same
thing and was recognized by the Kentucky Board of Licensing of Professional
Engineers and Surveyors as having a professional degree.

Professor Mather felt the original proposal was a good one and that the
suggestions made to include Engineering and Architecture, which is great for
them, but wondered if the Senate was making a mistake by voting to include them
without looking at the Rules as they now read. He felt it might be better to
separate the two issues and establish a procedure. He said the Senate Rules and
the Senate Council did not recognize the colleges of Engineering and
Architecture as professional schools. There might be another way to handle that
other than under the label of professional degree programs. Professor Mather
moved reconsideration of the amendment and Professor Jesse Neil seconded the
motion.

Professor Rea felt the engineers and architects would come back to the
Senate with a similar suggestion and he thought that would be messy to have two
when clearly one was sufficient. He preferred to have the proposal go back to a
committee for rewording without involving the Senate in terminology.

The Chair said there was no debate on reconsideration of motions and the
motion on the floor was to reconsider the amendment which passed in a voice vote.

Professor Neil moved and Professor Frye seconded to delete Architecture and
Engineering from the proposal. There was no discussion on the substitute amend-
ment which passed in a hand count of 42 to 12. In discussion on the original
proposal Professor Eakin wanted to know if the issue could be considered again
formally and that the matter could be brought before the Senate at an early date
for discussion. Chairman Lyons said the two colleges might consider sending a
formal request to his office in order to get it into the works. The original
proposal passed unanimously and reads as follows:

Proposed Addition:

V 4.4.3 Professional Degrees

 

The colleges offering professional degrees (Law,
Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy) reserve the right to

 

 change curriculum requirements provided the program
change has gone through the University's approval
process. Any such change in curriculum, however,
shall not result in a longer tenure for students
enrolled in the program who are making satisfactory
academic progress.

******

Rationale:

The University Senate Rules provide specific rules related to
changes in program requirements for undergraduate degrees
(Section V — 4.4.l) and graduate degrees (Section V - 4.4.2).
There is no provision in the Rules, however, for students
enrolled in the professional programs. This proposal is
designed to correct that situation. Given the nature of these
professional areas, the proposed rule would allow program
changes during a student‘s tenure. It would, however, protect
the student from a longer tenure requirement due to any change
in program requirements providing the student is making
satisfactory academic progress.

Implementation Date: Spring Semester, T988

The Chairman recognized Professor Loys Mather. Professor Mather, on behalf
of the Senate Council, moved adoption of the proposed change in University
Senate Rules, Section I - 3.3.2, proposing additional Community College repre-
sentation on the Undergraduate Council and the University Studies Committee.
This proposed change was circulated to members of the Senate under date of
September 29, l987.

 

Chairman Lyons said the proposal came from the Senate Council and, there—
fore, did not need a second. The floor was opened for discussion. Professor
James Kemp (Agriculture) felt the proposal was a good one, but wanted to know
about the logistics. For example, the travel time involved from one of the
Community Colleges. Chairman Lyons said that had been discussed in the Senate
Council. The proposal has also been discussed with the Community College
Council and it did not feel there would be any major problems. Dr. Ben Carr
(Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Community College System) said that
whoever decided they could serve on the Undergraduate Council and would be able
to come to the meetings, could be appointed. He said obviously someone from
Paducah would not be interested in serving on the Council. Professor Lisa
Barclay (Family Studies) requested an editorial change on page three, second
paragraph, sixth line to add "one representative from" the faculty of the
Community College System. Professor Louis Swift (Undergraduate Studies) said
currently there was a representative of the Community College System which is
Mike Kerwin in the Office of the Chancellor. His concern is whether Mike is a
representative of the faculty and the other person is a second representative of
the faculty or did Mike represent the Chancellor's Office. He wanted to make
sure that nothing was institutionalized that was not intended. His impression
was that Mike represented the Community College faculty. Chairman Lyons said
that the language and Rules regarding the Community College representation on

the Undergraduate Council and the University Studies Committee arallel. He
said they were to represent the "interests of the Community Col ege system,” and

 

 that usually those persons had been someone operating out of the Chancellor's
Office. The request which came from the Community College faculty with the
concurrence of the Chancellor was that the faculty per se ought to have a
representative. An extra person from the Community College System is going to
be added to both bodies but that extra person would be viewed more as a faculty
representative than the person serving up to this point. There was no further
discussion and the motion, as editorially changed, passed unanimously and reads
as follows:

Proposed:

Undergraduate Council (deletions in brackets; new portions
underlined)

 

I. 3.3.2 Composition--It shall consist of [sixteen (l6)] seventeen
(I75 members. Nine of the members shall be elected By the
faculty of colleges, groups of colleges or parts of
colleges as follows: (US:lO/12/8l) (US:4/9/84) (US:
4/14/86)

One member from the combined areas of Literature and
Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences, the
College of Fine Arts, and the Honors Program. One member
from the combined areas of Biological and Physical
Sciences in the College of Arts and Sciences. One member
from the combined areas of the Social Sciences in the
College of Arts and the College of Communications. One
member from the College of Agriculture. One member from
the College of Education. One member from the College of
Engineering. One member from the College of Business and
Economics. One member from the combined Colleges of
Architecture, Social Work, and Home Economics. One
member from the combined Colleges of Allied Health,
Nursing, and Pharmacy. (US:3/lZ/79) (US:4/9/84)

One additional member shall be selected to represent the
faculty of the Community College System in a manner
prescribed by the Community College Senate.

 

 

 

0f the seven remaining members, one shall be the Director
of University Studies, one shall be appointed by the
Senate Council. One member shall be appointed by the Vice
Chancellor for Academic Affairs for the Community College
System. [to represent the needs and problems of the
Community College System.] Four members shall be
appointed by the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs with the advice and consent of the Undergraduate
Council. Of these four, two shall be faculty members from
colleges eligible to have representation on the
Undergraduate Council, and the remaining two shall be
undergraduate students from eligible colleges.
(US:lO/l2/81) (US:4/9/84) (US:4/l4/86)

 

 3.3.3 Election-~EThe] Faculty members who are eligible to vote

3.3.4

for and be electdd to the University Senate shall be
eligible to serve in and vote for all elected members of
the Undergraduate Council other than the faCfilty
representatives from the Community College System. If an
elected member of the Council should at any time during
his or her term become ineligible to serve, a vacancy
shall be declared. To fill each vacancy, the
Undergraduate Council shall appoint that member from the
eligible faculty who at the last election received the
highest number of votes without being elected to serve
for the duration of the elected member's ineligibility.
Election for membership on the Undergraduate Council
shall take place during the spring term and the newly
elected members shall assume their seats on September 1
of the same year. Balloting for all elected members
other than the faculty representative from the Community

Colle e System shall be conducted in the same manner as
described in the last paragraph of Section 1., 3.2.3.
Terms; Vacancies-—Council members will serve three year
staggered terms expiring on August 3l, and shall be
ineligible to succeed themselves until a lapse of one

year, except that where they have served one year or less
as a replacement, they shall be eligible to be elected.

 

 

 

 

 

*****

University Studies Committee (US: 2/3/86) (4/l4/86)

 

l. The University Studies Committee shall be composed of
[fifteen] sixteen voting members, twelve from the
faculty, two students and [one] two members from the
Community College System. It shETT be chaired by the
Director of the University Studies Program who shall
not have a vote except in cases of ties. The Vice
Chancellor for Academic Affairs of the Lexington
Campus shall be an ex officio, non voting member of
the Committee. ‘__

The faculty members shall be appointed by the Senate
Council. The Senate Council shall solicit nominations
from the faculty prior to making appointments. The
composition of the faculty membership shall parallel
that of the Undergraduate Council, with nine members
representing various undergraduate colleges and one
representative from the faculty of the Community

Colle e System as described in Rule I - 3.3.2 and with
three Being appointed at large. Faculty members shall
serve for staggered three-year terms. (The initial
appointees shall be divided by lot into three groups,
one to serve two years, another to serve three years,

and the last to serve four years, in order to get the
staggered

 

 

 turnover started.) Faculty members may not succeed
themselves, nor may they serve on the Committee again
for a period of three years, except for a faculty
member who is appointed to fill out a vacant term of
one year or less.

The two student members shall be appointed by the
Senate Council from names recommended by the President
of the Student Government Association. One of the
Community College System members shall be appointed by
the Senate Council upon the recommendation of the
Chancellor of the Community College System; the other
shall be appointed by the Senate Council upon the
recommendation of the Community College Council.

***~k*

Rationale:

There have been numerous requests including the one made by
President Roselle to the Senate on September 14, l987, to do
everything possible to improve relations between the main campus and
the Community College System. One of the specific suggestions made
by the Community College Council to the Senate Council was to
provide an opportunity for the faculty of the Community College
System to be represented on the Undergraduate Council and on the
University Studies Committee. This seemed to be a reasonable
request and one that would enhance the role of this element of the
faculty on the two bodies that have responsibilities of particular
interest to the Community Colleges.

Implementation Date: Fall Semester, l988

The final action item on the agenda concerned the proposed reorganization
in the College of Dentistry. Chairman Lyons said the item was different in
format because it was not a change in the University Senate Rules. He said it
was technically a recommendation from the University Senate to the President of
the Institution and to the Board of Trustees.

 

The Chair again recognized Professor Loys Mather. Professor Mather, on
behalf of the Senate Council, moved approval of the proposed reorganization in
the College of Dentistry. This was circulated to members of the Senate under
date of October 2, 1987.

The floor was opened for discussion. The Chair said the Senate Council had
considered the proposal, but that the entire report was not circulated to the
Senate. Professor Gesund wanted to know if there had been any opposition to the
reorganization in the College of Dentistry. Professor Paul Eakin (Mathematics)
said his committee had circulated letters to the faculty in the College of
Dentistry and received 55 letters and there were 53 non-negative and most of
those enthusiastic. The college would be going from eleven departments to two.
Dr. Peter Bosomworth (Chancellor for the Medical Center) said that most of the

members of the Senate would recall the compromises that were reached four years
ago, three years ago and two years ago for the preservation of the College of

 

 Dentistry with the Council on Higher Education. Those resulted in a series or
organizational proposals. The outcome of that was the arrangements that were
agreed upon at that time proved, in some instances, not to function effectively,
particularly in terms of the shared chair arrangement. Both Louisville and the
University came to the realization that plan was not in the best interest of the
institution over the long term. That meant both institutions could look at
their organizational structure and the scope of their programs. At the time,
the College of Dentistry had some departments with only two members and that did
not make sense. There was an intensive review with faculty participation
provided under the leadership of originally Dr. Costich and then Dr. Nash who
was involved with the specifics of the proposal along with the faculty. Dr.
Bosomworth felt the organizational structure would contribute to the future of
the college and hoped the Senate would find it possible to recommend to the
President the reorganization.

Professor Gesund wanted to know about the functional relationship between
the chairs and the heads and who would decide faculty merit raises and
evaluations. Professor Eakin said to think of the heads as associate deans.
All evaluations of faculty would ultimately go from the heads to the respective
department chairmen, and the chairmen would make the recommendations to the
deans. The question would be whether or not there would be a back door. He
said there could be a back door because the chairmen could have coffee with the
associate deans.

Professor Robert Spedding (Dentistry) enthusiastically supported the
adoption of the reorganization. Dean Peggy Meszaros (Home Economics) counted
eleven administrators for 55 faculty. Professor Eakin said that was half as
many as the college did have. There was no further discussion and the proposed
reorganization in the College of Dentistry passed unanimously and reads as
follows:

Pro osal: The proposed reorganization will result in a
reconfiguration of the current eleven academic departments into
two. The current departments are: Orthodontics, Pediatric
Dentistry, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Prosthodontics,
Restorative Dentistry, Endodontics, Periodontics, Oral Biology, Oral
Biagnosis/Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, and Community Dentistry.
Consolidation into two larger departments, while retaining sections
of specialists, will permit the College's departmental structure to
more appropriatety approximate that of a typical university
department. The proposed departments are: Department of Oral
Health Practice and Department of Oral Health Science. he
Department of Oral Health Practice will be composed of seven
sections (or divisions) which are the current departments of
Orthodontics, Pediatric Dentistry, Oral Surgery, Prosthodontics,
Restorative Dentistry, Endodontics and Periodontics, and will house
thirty—three faculty. The Department of Oral Health Science will
consist of four sections (or divisions) which are the current
departments of Oral Biology, Oral Diagnosis/Oral Medicine, Oral
Pathology, and Community Dentistry and house twenty—six faculty.
[See attached organizational chart at end of Minutes.]

Rationale: The college of Dentistry has proposed this substantial

reorganization of its academic, clinical, and administrative
structure in order to better fulfill its various m1551ons. The

 

 proposal has the support of the Senate Committee on Academic
Organization and Structure and the Senate Council. Based on letters
submitted to the Committee on Academic Organization and Structure,
there also appears to be broad and substantial support for the
proposed reorganization among the 55 faculty members of the College
of Dentistry.

*****

Note: The proposal will be forwarded to President Roselle for appropriate
administrative action.

Professor Lyons pointed out that the matter would be on the Trustees agenda
for its meeting on the 20th of November, so the Senate's action would be com-
municated to the President as rapidly as possible.

Chancellor Bosomworth thanked the members of the Senate Council and the
various committees and the chairmen for their very intent and expeditious con-
sideration of a complex item. His belief was that it was the most thoroughly
reviewed and yet the most expedited process that he had encountered during his
seventeen years in the Senate. He thanked the Senate.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.

Rz7ZZ Z

dall w.’
Secretary of the University Senate

 

 PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

 

SPECIAL V ,

ASSISTANT To ®
THE DEAN - '

‘ ORAL HEALTH PRACTICE ORAL HEALTH SCIENCE

OFFICE OF - ENDODONTICS . COMMUNITY DENTISTRY
DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS ‘ ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL . ORAL BIOLOGY

OFFICE OF :2:Iii::3 DENTISTRY . ORAL DIAGNOSIS
DIRECTOR STUDENT AFFAIRS ' ORAL PATHOLOGY
DIRECTOR OFFICE OF INFORMATION

° PERIODONTICS
RESOURCES

 

 

 

 

SiNBWlUVdBO

 

SECTIONS

' PROSTHODONTICS
. ' RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY

 

 

 

 

 

STUDENT DENTISTS' CARE
RESIDENTS' CARE
FACULTY CARE

CARE

 

DOCTORAL PROGRAM ,
ROSTDOCTORAL PROGRAMS E
- RESIDENCIES
- CONTINUING EDUCATION

 

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
CLINICAL RESEARCH
BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH

HEALTH SERVICES
RESEARCH

RESEARCH EDUCATION

 

CONSULTATION
PUBLIC EDUCATION

EXTRAMURAL PATIENT
CARE PROGRAM

ADVOCACY

 

SERVICE

 

 

 

 

 

 

MISSION THRUSTS

 

 LNMVERSHY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
10 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 29 September 1987

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council

AGENDA. ITEM: University' Senate Meeting, Monday, October l2,
l987. Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section I -
3.5.2, proposing additional Community College representation on
the Undergraduate Council and the University Studies Committee.

 

Proposed:

Undergraduate Council (deletions in brackets; new portions underlined)

 

1. 3.5.2 Composition——It shall consist of [sixteen (l6)]
seventeen (l7) members. Nine of the members shall be
elected by the faculty of colleges, groups of colleges
or parts of colleges as follows: (US:lO/l2/8l)
(US:4/9/84) (Us: 4/14/86)

One member from. the combined areas of Literature and
Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences, the
College of Fine Arts, and the Honors Program. One
member from the combined areas of Biological and
Physical Sciences in the College of Arts and Sciences.
One member from the combined areas of the Social
Scien