xt7nzs2k9q0j https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dipstest/xt7nzs2k9q0j/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1990-04-23  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 23, 1990 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 23, 1990 1990 1990-04-23 2020 true xt7nzs2k9q0j section xt7nzs2k9q0j MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL 23, 1990

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, April
23, 1990, in Room 106 of the Classroom Building.

Donald C. Leigh, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Reginald J. Alston, Charles T. Ambrose, Ronald
Atwood, Michael Baer, Harry V. Barnard*, Raymond F. Betts, Susannah Bobys,
Peter P. Bosomworth, T. Earle Bowen, Michael W. Bowling, Joan C. Callahan*,
Rutheford B Campbell, Jr., Ben W. Carr, Edward A. Carter, Jeff Carver, Jordan
L. Cohen, Ramona Dalton*, Ann Davidson, Vincent Drnevich, James Drummond*,
Bruce S. Eastwood*, Ronald D. Eller*, Charles W. Ellinger, Joseph L. Fink 111,
Rob Followell, J. Brauch Fugate, Richard W. Furst, Marilyn C. Hamann, Robert
E. Hemenway, Micki King HOgue, James G. Hougland, Jr., Stephanie Howard,
Alfred S. L. Hu, Bruce Hunt, Mehran Jahed, Richard A. Jensen*, David C.
Johnson*, John Paul Jones, Edward J. Kasarskis, Richard I. Kermode, Gerald
Lemons, Scott Lewis, C. Oran Little, Robert Lohman, Sean Lohman, Ken Lovins,
Paul Mandelstam*, Loys L._Mather*, Peggy Meszaros, Robert C. Noble, Melody
Noland, Jose 0ubrerie*, Thomas R. Pope, Deborah E. Powell, Doug Reed, Thomas
C. Robinson, Wimberly C. Royster, Edgar L. Sagan, Michael C. Shannon, Jeffrey
Stivers, Kumble R. Subbaswamy, Louis J. Swift, Dennis M. TeKrony, Richard H.
Underwood, Michael A. Webb, Eugene Williams, Emery A. Wilson, Alfred D. Winer,
and Mary L. Witt.

The Chairman recognized Professor Daniel Fulks to make an announcement
about Honors Day. Professor Fulks reminded the Senate about Honors Day on
April 24. He stated that the Convocation would be at 3:00 p.m. and the
speaker is Dr. Edward H. Jennings, President of The Ohio State University.
The same format as in previous years will_be used. He stated that students
who have done outstanding work will be recognized, and there will be more
student recognition this year. He added there would be exhibits in the
Singletary Center of various creative work done by the faculty, staff, and
students. He stated that attendance would be appreciated. The Chairman
thanked Professor Fulks.

The Chairman recognized Interim President Charles Wethington for some
remarks on the budget.

A summary of Dr. Wethington's remarks follows:

Dr. Wethington thanked Chairman Leigh and seconded the motion
about Honors Day. He extended an invitation and welcome to the
faculty to attend Honors Day and join in recognizing some faculty,
staff, and students for individual achievement inside the University
of Kentucky and hear Edward Jennings, President of the Ohio State
University, who will present his opinions about where public univer-
sities are going over the next few years. He felt it would be well
worth the faculty's time to hear Dr. Jennings.

*Absence explained.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, April 23, 1990

Since this is the last meeting of the Senate for the academic
year, Dr. Nethington wanted to give some information from his
perspective on what will be proposed in terms of salary increases for
the operating budget for l990-9l. He wanted the Senate to hear from
him what he has done with'the Chancellors and Vice Presidents in
making decisions about the budget for next year. He stated that the
decisions made on the budget for 1990-91 are subject to Board of
Trustees approval. In working with the cabinet members Dr.
Hethington has found that they can put together a salary increase
package which makes a lD% salary increase pool available for faculty
and staff for l990-91. With the excellent budget proposed by
Governor Wilkinson and enhanced and passed by the General Assembly,
there is an operating budget increase which Dr. Hethington feels
reasonably good about in terms of l990-9l and again for 199l-92. He
stated that budget decisions and salary decisions can now be made for
next year. Information has been given to the various administrators
that does establish a l0% salary increase pool for the various
sectors. The Chancellors and Vice Presidents, working with the unit
administra- tors, will make salary proposals to Dr. Hethington which
will distribute salary increases based on merit and will lead to
individual salary increases. Any adjustments, promotions, and scale
adjustments also will come out of the lD% pool. There is an average
l0% salary pool in the various sectors that gives the administrators
an opportunity to make decisions inside that sector about the manner
in which those salary increases are distributed. He stated that the
salary increases are based on merit and by Board of Trustees policy.
Also promotions, appointments, and salaries are determined on the
basis of merit. Dr. Nethington is pleased to be able to increase
salaries this much and said that the salary deter- mination would
take some reallocations inside the University of Kentucky in addition
to the new dollars from the state. The process is underway and he
said that it would be moved toward completion, ultimately to be
approved at the June l9 Board of Trustees meeting.

The second point Dr. Hethington made concerned putting salary
and salary increases both for faculty and staff at the top of the
list of priorities once fixed costs are handled. He stated that this
kind of salary increase will let the University make a good move
toward getting more competitive and moving toward the median of our
benchmark institutions.

Dr. Hethington's third point was that given the biennial budget
in Kentucky the University has an opportunity to have two excellent
years rather than one. He added that he could not remember having
that opportunity. The biennial budget is good enough that one
significant step can be made this year and next year a plan can be
developed to help the University move a little closer to the median
of the benchmark institutions and over a two-year period get the
University much more competitive in terms of both faculty and staff
salaries. Dr. Hethington stated that he obviously could not commit
what would happen a year from now for the l991-92 budget, but he told
the faculty that a plan has been discussed to make a signifi-

 

 Minutes, University Senate, April 23, l990

cant improvement toward the median of the benchmark institutions over
a two—year period. He stated that he is going to assume that the
University can do considerably better than its competition over the
biennium.

Dr. Hethington discussed the capital projects which have been
included as part of the budget process. Some of these have been
recommended by the Governor and some by the General Assembly. His
feeling about these projects is that every one of them is vital,
necessary and needed projects-for the University System, the
Community College System_and the various units of the entire
institution. The Governor has indicated that he wants to review the
capital projects that have been added to the budget by the General
Assembly. Dr. Hethington feels that role is very proper and appro-
priate and the University stands ready to provide the Governor's
staff with any and all information that we are asked for about the
capital projects which either he recommended or were added by the

.General Assembly. Dr. Nethingtbn is extremely pleased with the
capital budget as well, but he stated that the heart of the institu-
tion is determined by the operating budget, and the operating budget
is the one which he feels most comfortable and most pleased with
because it does affect people, and it allows the University to put
its priorities on salaries, and he feels it is highly appropriate to
do so.

Dr. Wethington stated that the other kinds of priorities which
will be addressed for the l990-9l budget will be withheld until a
later date. He added there would be dollars available to move ahead
with priorities inside the University consistent with some of the
faculty's needs and concerns.

There were no questions and the Interim President was given a round of
applause.

Chairman Leigh recognized Professor William Lyons for a report from the
Presidential Search Committee.

. Professor Lyons stated that the committee has not met since
Professor Loys Mather spoke at the last meeting. The next committee
meeting is scheduled for May 31. -The advertisments and materials
sent out have not specified a cut-off date. The latest figures which
Professor Lyons has from Dr. Paul Sears' office suggest that there
are now l3 applicants for the Office of President and there are 59
different names of individuals that have been nominated. Some of
those nomi- nated have been nominated by more than one person, but
there are 59 different names in the file at this time.

Professor Lyons expressed concern that relatively few faculty
members seem to have made nominations, based on Dr. Sears' experience
as Secretary of the Search Committee from the last time. Professor
Lyons urged each one to make sure to get their nominations (in
writing) to the Chair of the Search Committee in care of Paul Sears
in the Administration Building.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, April 23, 1990

the Chair of the Search Committee in care of Paul Sears in the
Administration Building.

The next meeting will be on May 3l at which time the committee
will begin reviewing the candidates. The big task will be to find
out which of the 59 individuals who have been nominated are inter-
ested in having their name go forward. Professor Lyons stated that
the committee will diScuss some other procedural matters. He assured
the Senate that even though there have been no substantive meetings
things are moving forward with applications and nominations. He once
again urged faculty members to submit names of anyone they think
would be appropriate and to discover if‘they might be interested in
filing for the position.

There were no questions. The Chair thanked Professor Lyons for his report.
The Chair made the following remarks:

First of all I would like to thank the Senate members for
their attendance and participation this year. This is our last
meeting of the academic year. I would like to thank the hard
working committees of the Senate and, of course, we see evidence
of that today in the many action items. I would also like to
thank the members of the administration whom I have worked with
during the year. They have been most cooperative and pleasant
to work with. I would like to thank the Registrar's Office,
Randall Dahl and Martha Sutton, for their excellent work and
especially the timely way in which the election of faculty for
the Search Committee was handled in December and January when we
were in a rush. I would like to thank Gifford Blyton for his
service as parliamentarian, Frankie Garrison and Susan Wilson
for their service as sergeants-at-arms. Finally, I would like
to thank Celinda Todd for her tremendous help. Cindy is really
the Executive Chair of the Senate. I am just the titular
chair. She is the one who really does all the work.

The Chair recognized Professor Marcus McEllistrem (Physics and Astronomy)
for the first action item. Professor McEllistrem, on behalf of the Senate
Council, moved to recommend to the administration to establish a multidisci-
plinary Center for research, teaching and service in the area of drug and
alcohol abuse to be established at the University of Kentucky. The proposal
was circulated to members of the Senate under date of 9 April l990.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Lester
Goldstein (Biological Sciences) wanted some idea of the cost to the University
and wanted to know if the Senate Council had approved the proposal without
knowing what the cost would be. Professor McEllistrem stated there would be
external grants. Chairman Leigh asked Professor Paul Eakin (Mathematics),
Chairman of the Organization and Structure Committee that reviewed the propo-
sal, for any input. Professor Eakin stated that most of the centers involved
some administrative resources. His impression is that Professor Goldstein was
talking about reallocation of the administrative resources. Professor

 

 Minutes, University Senate, April 23, 1990

Goldstein wanted to know if there were any negatives associated with the
proposal. Professor Eakin stated the main one is, "What is it going to
cost?" He added that the administrative costs would be reallocated to points
that would pay off such as in research.

The motion passed in a voice vote and the pr0posal as approved follows:

Pro osal:

It 15 proposed that a multidisciplinary Center for research,
teaching and service in the area of drug and alcohol abuse be
established at the University of Kentucky. This Center is to
be established for the administration of multidisciplinary
programs which would bring together faculty members from
various colleges and departments of the University who have a
strong common interest in the various dimensions of drug and
alcohol abuse and in the phenomenon of addiction. The Center
will operate under the aegis of the Office of the Vice
President for Research and Graduate Studies. Extramural
funding will be sought to complement and supplement University
support.

Background and Rationale:

Alcohol and drug abuse is commonly acknowledged as the most
serious health problem in the United States in terms of total
morbidity. The national statistics, when pro-rated to
Kentucky, outline a problem of very serious public health
concern.

The University of Kentucky, as the principal research entity of
the Commonwealth, is in an excellent position to mobilize and
concentrate its research, teaching and service resources in a
Center that addresses this problem. The concept of a Center of
Drug and Alcohol Abuse is consistent with the mission of the
University as summarized in the strategic plan and with the
long-range planning for education in Kentucky on every level.
It offers the potential for enhancement of the University's
research contributions on the national and international

level. Through such mechanisms as coordination and enhanced
effectiveness of existing services, successful competition for
research grant funds and reduction of direct and indirect
economic costs related to addiction, the Center will have a
very positive impact on local, regional and state public health
resources and the economy of the Commonwealth.

The University has the enviable resource of a group of
highly-respected, well-funded, biological, epidemiological,
psycholOgical and sociocultural investigators in the area of
drug abuse. Among this group are individuals who have given
serious consideration to the meaning of knowledge across
disciplines. Furthermore, substantially-funded research
programs are currently underway. Various investigators within
the University are presently in receipt of approximately $1.6
million annually in research money.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, April 23, 1990

The people, research program, funding and intellectual frame-
work are in place to afford the University a unique opportunity
.to be an outstanding example on campus of the integration and
collaboration of research activities underway throughout the
institution. Current programs, as well as those to be
developed, will provide significant additional resources for
the training of graduate Students and post-doctoral fellows who
aspire to research careers related to the addictions.

Mission Statement:

On the Basis of personnel already here and their work, the
University of Kentucky Center on Drug and Alcohol Abuse will be
an internationally recognized Center_for research into the
biological, psychological, sociocultural, sociological,
pharmaceutical and communications aspects of substance use and
abuse. The Center will organize and integrate a series of
major scholarly efforts in the field that are university—wide
so as to achieve an interdisciplinary perspective in research,
education and clinical services.

The objectives of the University of Kentucky Multidisciplinary
Center on Drug and Alcohol Abuse are as follows:

l. Integration and enhancement of current University programs
in research, education and clinical services in the area of
addictive behavior.

Establishment of new basic and clinical research programs
in the area of addiction, with particular emphasis on
multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary University-wide
approaches.

A core addictive sciences research facility structured in
such a way as to be available for affiliation to all
segments of the University.

Work in a close coordinate relationship with the University
Hospital, the various departments of the College of
Medicine and the multiple components of the University at
large to establish new patient care programs and coordinate
their activities.

Serve as a coordinating entity for the wide range and
complexity of current educational programs in the addictive
diseases conducted within the context of the University.

The Chair recognized Professor Marcus McEllistrem for the second action
item. On behalf of the Senate Council, Professor McEllistrem, recommended
approval of the proposal to recommend to the administration to abolish all
four-year baccalaureate degree options (except the BSN in Nursing) offered
through University Extension at Ft. Knox along with the abolition or closure

of the University of Kentucky Center at Ft. Knox, effective December 31,

 

 Minutes, University Senate, April 23, 1990

l990. Professor McEllistrem stated that the rationale requested that the
following four-year baccalaureate degree Options offered through University
Extension at the Ft. Knox Center be discontinued: Bachelor of General
Studies, B.A. in Political Science, Bachelor of Business Administration,
Bachelor in Management Psychology (topical major), B.A. in Psychology, B.A. in
Public Management (topical major) and the BSN in NUrsing. (It should be noted
that the College of Nursing will continue to work with the Ft. Knox Army
Command to continue its program.) Professor McEllistrem's understanding is
that all personnel have been reassigned. He stated that the proposal has been
reviewed by the Senate Committee on Organization and Structure and the Senate
Council and is recommended by both. The proposal was circulated to members of
the Senate under date of 5 April l990.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Hans Gesund
(Civil Engineering) asked about the statement in the agenda item "to abolish
all four-year baccalaureate degree options (except the BSN in Nursing)" but in
the rationale, line six, second paragraph, the BSN in Nursing is listed in the
degree options to be discontinued. His feeling is that this needs to be
clarified. Professor Eakin stated that the proposal is to abolish the Center
at Ft. Knox. Professor McEllistrem stated that the College of Nursing would
continue working with the Ft. Knox Army Command to continue its program.
Professor Eakin stated that the administration has done a good job of taking
care of the individual students and he feels there is no cause for concern.

He stated there was one staff person bound to the Ft. Knox area because of
family ties. Dean Carolyn Williams (Nursing) clarified that the BSN in
Nursing at Ft. Knox is being handled directly by the College of Nursing
through Extension but not through the Ft. Knox Center. She added that there
is a different adminis- trative arrangement. Dr. Philip Greasley (Executive
Director of University Extension) stated that all faculty members at Ft. Knox
have been transferred and some are moving into the University system. There
were no further questions. The motion was unanimously approved and reads as
follows:

Proposal:

0 discontinue all four-year baccalaureate degree options
(except the BSN in Nursing) offered through University
Extension at Ft. Knbx along with the closure of the University
of Kentucky Center at Ft. Knox.

Background and Rationale:

For the past several years, University Extension has been
operating the four-year program segment of the Ft. Knox Center
at a considerable economic loss. These losses are the result
of declines in the number of military personnel opting four-
year degrees there, due in turn to the Army's decision not to
continue its programs in military psychology and gee-politics.
Initially, programs and personnel were reduced to deal with the
lower enrollments. However, when the military Opted to reduce
its tuition assistance program, and buy its general studies
coursework exclusively from the nearby community college at
Elizabethtown, the income at the Ft. Knox location was reduced
by 65% but the costs for funding the operation were not
diminished.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, April 23, 1990

It is therefore requested that the following four1year
baccalaureate degree options offered through University
Extension at the Ft. Knox Center be discontinued: Bachelor of
General Studies, B.A. in Political Science, Bachelor of
Business Administration, Bachelor in Management Psychology
(topical major), B.A. in Psychology, B.A. in Public Management
(topical major) and the BSN in Nursing. (It should be noted
that the College of Nursing will continue to work with the Ft.
Knox Army Command to continue its program.)

Proper notification has been made to all students, and the
full-time tenured faculty members have been reassigned.

The proposal has been reviewed by the Senate Comittee on
Organization and Structure and the Senate Council and is
recommended by both.

The Chair recognized Professor McEllistrem for the third action item.
Professor McEllistrem, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved to recommend to
the administration to establish an interdisciplinary Center for Computational
Sciences at the University of Kentucky. Professor McEllistrem stated that a
Center for Computational Sciences has been in existence at the University for
a few years and the proposal is to establish the Center officially as a
University Center. The proposal was circulated to members of the Senate 9
April l990.

The floor was opened for discussion. Professor Gesund stated that the
third line in the Background should be eliminated. He felt the people in
computer science mig t e un appy to hear that computational science is not a
discipline in the traditional sense. Chairman Leigh stated that the terms
“computational science" and "computer science" are different terms. Professor
Gesund stated it was an editorial change and could be taken out. The Chair
stated that he was not sure everyone agreed. Professor Robert Spedding
(Dentistry) called for a point of order. He stated the infonnation was in the
background and had nothing to do with the resolution. There was no further
discussion. The motion unanimously passed and reads as follows:

Pro osal:

It is proposed that an interdisciplinary Center for
Computational Sciences be established at the University of
Kentucky. This Center will promote the use of computers
through coordinated programs in research, training and
education, and will provide a focus for faculty and students
who have a common interest in computation. The Center's
‘programs will be complementary to those of other departments,
and in most cases, will be collaborative with them. The Center
will be administered through the Office of the Vice President
for Research and Graduate Studies at the University of
Kentucky. The establishment of the Center will formalize an
activity which has been in existence since 1986, as a component
of the NSF/EPSCoR grant, and since 1987 as a Center of
Excellence sponsored by the Council on Higher Education.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, April 23, 1990

Back round:

Computational science is one of the most rapidly growing fields
of research, and it affects all branches of academic endeavor.
Computational science is not a discipline in the traditional
sense. It is a new mode of doing research in all disciplines.
It is intrinsically interdisciplinary, is facilitated by
interdisciplinary communication, and often is characterized by
rapid transfer of technology between different disciplines.

The Center will focus much of its efforts in encouraging such
communication and collaboration across traditional lines within
the university.

The proposed Center has actually operated as a program under
the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies for
several years. It has a stable financial base in the form of a
$400,000 per year state appropriation which is currently
enhanced by NSF funding under the EPSCoR program. It has the
enthusiastic support of faculty and administrators.

The proposal has been reviewed by the Senate Committee on
Organization and Structure and the Senate Council and is
recommended by both.

Chairman Leigh recognized Professor McEllistrem for the fourth action
item. Professor McEllistrem presented the proposal to revise University
Senate Rules Section V -l.0 to implement a plus/minus marking system or the
College of Fine Arts. Professor McEllistrem's reCollection was the proposal
did not have the endorsement of the Senate Council. The Chair stated the
proposal was approved by the Senate Council a year ago when it came to the
floor but was withdrawn and being reintroduced now. He stated it was a
holdover so it has been approved by the Senate Council. The proposal was
circulated to members of the Senate 10 April 1990.

The floor was opened for discussion. Dean Richard Domek's (Fine Arts)
understanding is that the Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards has
recommended against the proposal for the College of Fine Arts. His obser-
vation is that this proposal is a reversal of the original position of the
Admissions and Academic Standards Committee. He feels that if the proposal is
being discouraged for technical or administrative reasons it would seem
unfair. He added that if there is an issue of the plus/minus being stripped
from the grades of students who take Fine Arts courses who are not majors in
the College of Fine Arts, then there is concern that the stripping away
process will take too much time. Dean Domek spoke in favor of the proposal
because his understanding is that technology exists to enable this to be
done. Professor Goldstein wanted to know why the proposal is restricted to
.the College of Fine Arts and why is it not desirable to have the system in all
colleges. In response to Professor Goldstein's question Professor Lyons
stated the plus/minus system has come up before and each time the same
question has been raised, "If it is good enough for one college why not all?“
Some of the professional schools use it, but an argument against the plus/
minus for all colleges is that if nonanajors take courses in Fine Arts how

 

 Minutes, University Senate, April 23, l990

would their grade point averages be computed. Professor Lyons stated there is
concern over the extent of having different grading policies for different
colleges at the undergraduate level. He sympathizes very much with the
College of Fine Arts' desire to have the system, but he still has reservations
_about whether or not the system wOuld be good for all colleges. Chairman
Leigh stated there are two undergraduate programs that do have a plus/minus
system. They are architecture and landscape architecture. Professor Jonathan
Glixon (Music) feels the problem may be that some units do not want the
system. He stated there are students outside of architecture who do take
architecture courses. Professor Glixon feels it would be the best thing for
their college. The College of Fine Arts is different because there is crea-
tive work involved. He would not argue for the other colleges but only for
his own college. Professor Goldstein felt the system would invite more
subjectivity in the grading. Professor Glixon stated that in Fine Arts there
had to be subjectivity. He felt the system would work for mathematics, but he
was not arguing for that.

Dean Douglas Boyd (Communications) wanted to know if a student in educa-
tion takes an introductory theatre course and makes a 8+, would that figure in
the overall UK grading index the same way that a College of Fine Arts student
would receive the benefit of the B+. Professor McEllistrem stated that if a
student in Fine Arts received a 3+ he or she would get 3.3 quality points. A
non-major would get 3 quality points. Professor Gesund wanted to know why the
grade would be different and why the computer could not just as easily compute
the 3.3. Professor McEllistrem stated that the computer could do anything,
but that is not what the proposal is suggesting. Dr. Randall Dahl (University
Registrar) stated that as Dean Domek pointed out it is technologically
feasible to have a different grading system, but he cannot warrant the amount
of time it will take to make the system operational. Programming is required,
but it certainly can be done. Dr. Dahl stated that the policy at this time,
as has been indicated in architecture and landscape architecture, plus/minus
grading is allowed. The policy of the Senate and the rules interpretation has
been that the grade attaches to the student as opposed to more generally to
the course. The task the Registrar's Office is confronted with each semester
‘is to find and strip away the plus/minus for those students who have taken a
landscape architecture or architecture course but are not in those programs
per se. Dr. Dahl stated that the way it is established right now is that the
plus/minus is stripped away. He assumed that the Senate would not suggest
that one set of circumstances would strip the plus/minus away and another set
of circumstances would retain them. The Chair stated that the position would
have to be taken that the proposal fits in with the existing system. If the
Senate wants to change the system, then that is another matter.

Professor Gesund wanted to know what would happen if a student from Fine
Arts with a 2.2 or 2.3 wants to transfer to the College of Engineering. If
all the pluses are stripped, then the student might have a 2.0 or less. The
Chair stated that is a separate problem. Professor Gesund stated that if
students are going to be treated unfairly where a fine arts student could get
a 8+ from a course and an engineering student taking the same fine arts course
gets a B with the same evaluation then his feeling is that is not fair.
Professor Glixon stated that a minus would also be dropped for non-majors in
fine arts courses. He stated that the college is not asking for a brand new

 

 Minutes, University Senate, April 23, l990

fine arts courses. He stated that the college is not asking for a brand new
system but simply asking to apply the system of other programs now in exis-
tence. Professor Walter Foreman (English) wanted to know what provision the
proposal made for students who transfer into the College of Fine Arts and out
of the college. He wanted to know if the grades would be refigured. The
Chair stated that is not the issue but he asked Dr. Dahl for a clarification.
Dr. Dahl's understanding is that the grading practice that applies is the
grading practice which is in force for that student at the time the grade is
earned. That grade would stay on the student's record permanently. If a
student took a fine arts course and earned a 8+, and subsequently transferred
to engineering or any other college, the B+ would remain because the student
earned that properly under the rules.

Professor Constance Wilson (Social Work) stated that since there are
already programs under the system and since the Fine Arts College wants to be
another one of those programs, could the Senate pass the proposal today and
then let the Senate Council and committee look at the other issues that have
been mentioned. She added that the Fine Arts College had waited a year for
_the proposal to be