The Faculty Senate of Eastern Kentucky University met on Monday, May 4, 1998 in the South Room of the Keen Johnson Building. Senate Chair Karen Janssen called the last meeting of the academic year to order at 3:30 p.m.

The following members of the Senate were absent:

Ms. Margaret Baxter, Model Laboratory School; Dr. Preston Elrod, Criminal Justice; Mr. William Goodwin, Music; Dr. John Harley, Biological Science; Dr. Sue Strong, Administration Counseling & Educational Studies; Dr. John Wernegreen, Physics & Astronomy; Mr. Adam Back and Ms. Leslie Covington, Student Senate; Ms. Jamie Neal, Eastern Progress; and Mr. Tim Webb, University Photographer.

Announcements

Senator Janssen recognized those senators who have served the Faculty Senate for the past three years. Certificates of appreciation were at each retiring senator's desk.

Approval of the Minutes

Senator Janssen called for additions or corrections to the minutes. There being none, the minutes were approved as distributed.

Report from the President: Senator Funderburk

President Funderburk reported that he had been notified by state governmental officials that architects should be selected by the end of June for several recently approved campus capital construction projects: the Criminal Justice facility, the Student Service facility, and the Regional Postsecondary Centers. The Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) is still considering Eastern's proposals for programs of distinction. The new executive director of the Council on Postsecondary Education will be assuming office on July 1.

Report of the Executive Committee: Senator Janssen

Chair Janssen reported that at the April 20, 1998, meeting of the Executive Committee Dr. Ordelle Hill presented information about library acquisitions. After recent problems in funding the acquisition of books, the Library received $100,000, an 8.8% increase in the new budget. This summer the Planning and Budget Office will study the expenditures of EKU compared to other universities, and this comparison will assist in looking at the library's funding. The effects of technology on how faculty and students access information and how that in turn affects the needs of the library were also discussed. The Committee also received an update from Senator Murray on the progress of the Post- Tenure Review Committee.

Senator Janssen reported that she had talked to Dr. Bruce Bonar, Director of Model Lab School, about the school's admission policies. Model has not changed its policies, but has changed its procedures. Parents interested in enrolling their children in Model now are given packets that contain the policies and procedures.

In recapitulating the Senate's activities for the year, Senator Janssen mentioned that Standing Committees carried out their assigned tasks and kept their Senate reports short. There were five ad hoc committees: campus child care, college credit for workplace training, cost savings, grade inflation, and post-tenure review. The members of these committees gathered information, analyzed data, informed the Senate, and will be recommending changes.

On the state level, Chair Janssen reported that it had been a very active year. With other members of COSFL, she met regularly with the Faculty Representative on the Council of Post-Secondary Education, presented to legislative committees, met with the Governor and his staff, and talked Senator Tim Philpot into pulling the versions of his bill that would legislate a punitive post-tenure review. She also mentioned the role of the Faculty Senate in the selection of Dr. Robert Kustra as EKU's next president.

Special Recognition and Gift for President Funderburk

At the conclusion of her report, Chair Janssen presented on behalf of the Executive Committee several mugs and a platter from Bybee Pottery to President Funderburk. She also stated that the EKU Faculty Senate has bestowed Lifetime Membership in the Senate in appreciation to Senator Funderburk.

Report of the Faculty Regent: Senator Fleming

Senator Fleming reported that on April 20-21, she attended the National Conference on Trusteeship in Nashville, which was given by the Association of Governing Boards. Also attending were Board Chair J. T. Gilbert, Regents Alice Rhodes, Ronald Mink, and Barbara Ricke, and incoming President, Dr. Robert Kustra.

The EKU Board of Regents met on Saturday, April 25. The primary business was the approval of the 1998/99 budget. The most difficult issue facing the Board was the vote on an amendment offered by Regent Mink. Mr. Mink proposed that the University budget be amended to add an estimated $600,000 in funds to provide additional support to health insurance coverage for this year only. This money would be taken from a contingency fund shown in the budget summary. The vote on that amendment was tied at five "aye" and five "no," which defeated the motion. Senator Fleming voted "no" on the motion.

Business having to do with insurance issues is handled by the University Insurance Committee, chaired by Dr. Peter Kensicki, with representation by both faculty and staff. Dr. Funderburk reported at the Board meeting that the University had followed the committee's recommendations and that he had received a memo for Dr. Kensicki expressing approval of the University's support. Senator Fleming stated that she believed that the President should follow the recommendations of the committee established to act on such issues. If the administration's recommendation is inappropriate, it is the committee's responsibility to take further action. Her vote was predicated on the assumption that this process was working. Dr. Fleming will be a member of the insurance committee next year and will attend closely to decisions that are made.

Senator Fleming further stated that her vote was driven by another concern. It appears that hourly wages paid at EKU are low. This concern was expressed in a petition presented by the staff to the Board at their January meeting, a petition she signed. Data were presented at the April Board meeting, and an adjustment for clerical personnel only was approved. If wages are inappropriately low, this is a major factor in the difficulties caused by the insurance increase. As Regent, she proposed that a systematic review of policies, wages, and job classifications needs to be made, and she recommended that an independent consultant be hired to undertake such a study to determine appropriate wages and job descriptions. Senator Fleming will be meeting with Mr. Mink to write up a proposal for them to present to Dr. Kustra upon his assuming his responsibilities in July. In addition, they will be proposing the establishment of a staff senate, an idea that was positively discussed at the Trustees Conference which they just attended.

At the April meeting, Regent Boyer expressed great unhappiness at children being deprived of needed medical care. Senator Fleming stated that she would like the University to investigate other methods of helping staff and faculty meet the difficulties caused by the significant increase in insurance rates. In addition, the Board should continue to investigate the issues raised in the petition presented by the staff in January. Board Chair Gilbert has requested that data for the Richmond/Lexington area be collected and presented to the Board for all labor categories. Mr. Mink and Senator Fleming will be looking at that data and working with Dr. Kustra to answer our questions and to seek a way to make needed adjustments.

At the January meeting, Dr. Freed requested that the non-discrimination clause of EKU's affirmative action statement be modified to include protection against discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Dr. Funderburk requested a delay in action on that matter as the University is still collecting additional information. Senator Fleming distributed copies to all regents of pages from Northern Kentucky University's faculty, staff, and student handbooks, which already include such a statement. She was told by a staff member in the Office of the Legal Counsel at Western Kentucky University that this has been added to their nondiscrimination clause as well. This topic should be acted upon at the next meeting.

The Board of Regents will hold a Planning Retreat on July 17 and 18.

Senator Fleming concluded her remarks by mentioning that she will be preparing a written report after each Board meeting and hopes to set up a web page to allow faster dissemination. She will request that a copy of this report be sent to all faculty and staff members for their information. She would appreciate faculty comments and feedback. Dr. Fleming may be called at 5942 or, email to fleming@eagle.eku.edu.

Report from the COSFL Representative: Senator Sowders

Senator Sowders reported that COSFL met at the University of Kentucky on Saturday, April 18, 1998. The meeting began with a report from Sue Moore of the Council of Postsecondary Education, who discussed the Strategic Agenda, the means of communicating to Kentucky citizens what they can expect as a result of the efforts of the Commonwealth's postsecondary education efforts. She then asked COSFL members whether they agreed with its content and how the Strategic Agenda would help to make changes on campuses. In the discussion which followed, Merl Hackbart, faculty representative to the CPE, stated that approval of the Strategic Agenda was on the CPE agenda for July but that the development of the implementation plan might be months away. He said that the Strategic Agenda had been discussed with all of the CPE presidential candidates and suggested that COSFL members discuss it with new presidents on their campuses as well. He further suggested that although there has not been as much discussion of the importance of postsecondary education as there has been for elementary and secondary education, this Agenda will help encourage discussion since it is a vision of what we are trying to do in postsecondary education. In the discussion which followed, COSFL members expressed concern about the role of the CPE in relationship to the rest of the process, and the problem of competition among schools to get the largest share of resources and the problem of competition among programs within the institutions because of incentive funds. A COSFL member at Murray expressed hope that the new CPE president, Gordon Davies, will visit all campuses early in his administration, and other members expressed the hope that there would be opportunities for faculty input before the draft of the implementation plan. Several ways of achieving this input were discussed, including a meeting of the CPE Advisory Group with faculty senate chairs in early June.

Merl Hackbart then gave an update on legislative issues as they affected postsecondary education, stating that the Research and Regional Trust Funds had been enhanced by the legislature beyond CPE's requests and that additional projects and student financial aid had been approved beyond CPE's requests. Hackbart then reviewed the search for the new president of the CPE and said that Davies, with twenty years of experience at the coordinating board at Virginia, should give strong support. Saying that the CPE is a working council and very much involved in what is going on, Hackbart concluded by talking about the work of the Tuition Policy Group and the Academic Program Policy Study Group.

Reports from Standing Committees

Committee on Elections: Senator Chapman

No report given.

Committee on Committees: Senator Taylor

Senator Taylor reported that the committee has reviewed self-nominations and nominations for all 1998-99 University Committees.

Committee on Rules: Senator MacLaren

Senator MacLaren reported that members of the Rules Committee for the year commencing May 97 and ending May 98 were Bruce MacLaren, chair, Mark Chambers, Sandy Hunter, James McCord, Cedaliah Melton-Freeman. The committee's initial meeting was to determine whether it wished to make proposals from the committee regarding changing the meeting time of the May Senate meeting. Prior to this meeting the Chair of the Committee had engaged the Chair of the Senate in an electronic examination of the issue of changing the meeting time. At the meeting, several concerns were raised including tradition, the length of time to effect the change, no evidence that change would solve the problem, that a meeting of the faculty-at-large ought not be called for this issue. Finally it was established that the Chair of the Senate already had the power to change the meeting.

On December 5, 1997, the Chair of the Senate wrote a long note to the Chair of the Rules Committee. The note raised several issues. In response to this, the Chair of the Rules Committee did a study of attendance at the spring meetings of the Senate. It was determined that the meeting of May 1997 had an unusually large number of absences, but not a number greater than the quorum rule. The committee once again decided not to have the meeting changed.

Committee on the Budget: Senator Rink

No report given.

Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities: Senator Rink

No report given.

Reports from Special Committees

Ad Hoc Committee on College Credit for Workplace Training: Senator Nelson

Senator Nelson reported that members of the committee include Dr. Gilbert Bickum, Dr. Jack Culross, Dr. Steve Fardo, and Dr. Nelson.

The Committee met to begin consideration of two systems for awarding college credit for past educational attainment: (1) The National Guide to Educational Credit for Training Programs, (2) Courses from Dept. of Occupational Training and Development at the University of Louisville.

The Committee will continue to compare the systems in an attempt to address some issues which have been identified: (1) number of credits to be awarded for previous experience, (2) whether credits will be awarded as replacements for electives or required courses, (3) implementation to be consistent with existing university policy. Since Dr. Bickum is retiring, there will be a need to find a replacement for him.

Ad Hoc Committee on Cost Savings: Senator Quillen

Senator Quillen reported that the Ad-Hoc Committee on "Cost Savings" was appointed by Faculty Senate Chair Richard Rink in 1995. The Committee has been meeting over the past three years and has examined "cost saving" in some detail. Progress reports were provided to the Senate in 1997 and again in 1998.

The Committee completed its work and is of one mind in terms of the opportunities that a "cost saving" plan could provide the University. Committee members are supportive of the idea of providing incentives for suggestions that can be shown to benefit the overall operation of the University. Not only does the committee see potential gains in time and monetary savings, it sees the potential for a variety of operating efficiencies and improvement in overall morale. The principal difficulties in implementing such a program seem to focus upon two areas: (1) the University cost structure (with a high percentage of overall expenses related directly to personnel) and the various impacts that would result from trying to achieve "efficiencies" in such an area, and (2) the potential problem of trying to use approaches that work in the private sector that may not work at all or in the same way in the public sector. While these potential problems have been recognized by the committee, there is a great deal of optimism that these problems can be minimized/eliminated by careful adaptation of private programs into the university-type environment. There is consensus that non-monetary awards will normally be the best route to follow, except in very specific circumstances.

Based upon literature examination, discussions with outside experts, and internal committee discussions, the committee made the following recommendations: (1) a set of general recommendations and observations, and (2) a more detailed set of specific recommendations, along with a generalized implementation plan.

General Recommendations:

(1) We recommend that the University adopt a formalized system of generating internal suggestions and providing a system of providing "rewards" for ideas submitted that promote efficiencies in monetary expenditures, time savings, and in "morale building."

(2) We see the suggestion/reward approach as a "win-win" situation for the University as a whole and for students, faculty, staff, and administration in particular.

(3) Our proposal is designed to be "revenue positive" and would be essentially "revenue neutral" at worst. "Good suggestions," by definition, are those that the University would likely adopt because it would be in the University's interest to do so. The "savings" to EKU should far exceed any "costs" involved with "rewards" to individuals, especially since the expectation is that the "rewards" would overwhelmingly be recognition that is non-monetary in nature.

(4) We believe that the current environment of "cost cutting" and "downsizing", both nationally and statewide makes implementation at this time a special opportunity for Eastern Kentucky University. The grass-roots involvement of students, faculty, and staff in working to improve efficiencies at the University should place us in a position of leadership with respect to higher education in Kentucky.

Specific Recommendations:

(1 ) We recommend that the University, working through the Faculty Senate, appoint a permanent committee to oversee the final design and implementation of the "cost savings" plan. The committee should include representatives from students, staff, faculty, and administration. We further recommend that the permanent committee be limited to a membership of seven to ten individuals and that the terms of membership be staggered in order to provide some continuity.

(2) Upon approval of the suggestion/reward system and the naming of the initial committee, a public announcement should be made to the University community and the public at large.

(3) We recommend that a permanent committee be named and in place by the beginning of the 1998-1999 academic year. The permanent committee would be charged with the task of specific development of an appropriate system of generating and handling suggestions, and the preparation of a list of appropriate means of providing "rewards" and recognition. Further, the newly-formed committee would explore various approaches to making the system work smoothly and would work on "fine tuning" and making changes as needed.

(4) For the 1999-2000 year (and subsequent years) the suggestion/reward system should be formalized and fully operational. The first set of new members would be added to the committee and one-third of the original committee would have served their terms of appointment. The system would continue to be involved with on-going periodic review as to the success/problems associated with the overall system.

(5) The search for appropriate "rewards" should not be limited to ideas generated within the permanent committee. Ideas for "rewards" from the University community would be welcome as would "cost savings" suggestions.

Motion by Senator Quillen

Senator Quillen moved that the Faculty Senate approve the final report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Cost Savings and recommended that said report be forwarded to the President for his examination and, in turn, that the report be sent to all appropriate administrators for their review and action. Senator Rink seconded the motion, which was approved.

Ad Hoc Committee on Grade Inflation: Dr. Kirk Jones

Senator Chapman reported for Dr. Jones. She stated that as reported at the March meeting of the Faculty Senate, the Ad Hoc Committee on Grade Inflation has analyzed data on 7,000 Eastern Kentucky University students. The analysis included a sample of first-time, full-time undergraduate students who entered the university between the fall of 1983 and the fall of 1996.

This semester the committee surveyed faculty regarding their views of grade inflation at Eastern Kentucky University. The committee mailed 636 surveys and analyzed the results of 334 returned surveys for a return rate of 52.5%.

At this time analysis of both student and faculty data is complete. The committee is currently writing the report and developing recommendations which reflect the needs revealed by the data.

The final report will be completed over the summer. The committee shared the following preliminary results:

(1) Mean ACT scores in 1983 were 19.7; in 1996 they were 19.6. During this time period, mean ACT scores have remained relatively stable ranging from a low of 19.5 (1992) to a high of 20.2 (1988).

(2) On the faculty survey most Eastern Kentucky University faculty indicated that their course requirements have either remained stable (49%) or decreased (29%). Only 22% of the faculty returning the survey indicated that their course requirements have increased.

(3) Since 1990, the percentage of A grades, not counting W's, has increased approximately 1% a year. In 1990 the percentage of A's was 28.1, in 1991 it was 29.7, in 1992 it was 30.5, in 1993 it was 31.4, in 1994 it was 32.8, there is no data from 1995 but the trend probably continued because in 1996 the percentage of A grades was 34.4. (The committee will have the 1997 grade percentages in the fall report.) In 1993, 1994 and 1996 (there is no data for 1995), A was the modal undergraduate grade at Eastern Kentucky University. Between 1990 and 1996, the percentage of B grades has remained relatively stable, around 30-31.5%. Therefore, in 1996 A's and B's accounted for 65.1% of the undergraduate grades at this university.

(4) The most noticeable increases in GPAs have been (a) the graduation GPAs of students who entered EKU between 1988 and 1992, the last entry class to have begun to graduate, and (b) the first semester GPAs of students in the low (10 through 16) ACT category.

(5) The faculty survey revealed two major perceived causes of grade inflation: (a) the need for good student evaluations, and (b) felt pressure for retention at both the university and the departmental levels.

(6) Faculty suggestions for decreasing grade inflation included: (a) the introduction of +/- grading, and (b) the posting of grade distributions and GPAs within departments.

Any questions or concerns regarding this report, should be directed to Kirk Jones in the Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, 6175, or email jones@eagle.eku.edu.

Ad Hoc Post-Tenure Review: Senator Murray

Senator Murray reported that the committee spent considerable time in developing a series of principles and statements, not policies and processes, which can be used as a point of discussion when the faculty reassembles in the fall. The committee strongly believes that it is the responsibility of the university's colleges and departments within the colleges to establish policies for post-tenure review. There will be a series of open forums early in the Fall semester for faculty input.

Draft of Principles for Post-Tenure Review

Preamble

That the Eastern Kentucky University faculty is a body of scholars that are responsible for the level of scholarship maintained within the University. In order to maintain a high level of public accountability, the University has implemented a post-tenure review process to review the individual performance of all tenured faculty members.

Eastern Kentucky University takes the position that the post-tenure review process should be developed as a part of the annual merit review system. The annual merit review system is based on a value system that has been developed within the specific academic unit. Therefore, it is the belief of the faculty that the standards and measurement of the individual performance must be made at the unit or departmental level. The performance criteria should ensure that they do not infringe on the rights of the individual nor are in any way contrary to the standards of academic freedom.

This review process should add value to the teaching and learning process of the individual faculty member and will be accomplished in timely and orderly fashion. The process will occur at the instructional unit or department of the faculty member and will have been developed at this level. All elements of the review process will have been approved by a majority vote of the faculty of the department, with final approval provided by the college dean. This process will include the goals and strategic directions that have been developed and shall direct and guide the process in terms of beliefs and values of the unit. This should ensure that the process is carried out within the context of the university, college, and departmental goals and objectives and current evaluation processes.

Draft: Principles for the Process

1. The procedure for post-tenure review commences after tenure has been granted and is required of all faculty and administrations who hold academic rank. All due process and other personnel policies must be followed. The process will be conducted in five-year cycles.

2. If a faculty member has been promoted to the rank of associate or full professor or selected as a finalist for the Foundation Professorship during a five-year-cycle, s/he will have fulfilled the requirements of the post-tenure review process for that five-year period.

3. The specific guidelines for the review process should be developed at the instructional unit with endorsement at the college level by deans and should be consistent with University policies and practices. These guidelines must take into account the unit mission and the unit and individual responsibilities. This process should consider a faculty member's different stages of professional development.

4. Any faculty member receiving two annual evaluations during any five-year cycle that are overall below the established department standard, or no merit in any one year, must complete a comprehensive post-tenure review. The comprehensive evaluation report must be reviewed by a committee consisting of faculty members selected by the departmental unit. The review will be based on the available record of the faculty member's performance over the past five-year period.

5. If based on the comprehensive review, the committee decides that the faculty member needs to be engaged in a formal development plan, s/he will be required to participate in this plan to remove her/his deficiencies. The committee must identify appropriate resources to support implementation of specific recommendations. This plan must be approved by the chair and the dean.

6. Successful completion of the development plan, as determined by the original review committee, will initiate a new five-year review cycle.

7. A written record of all committee decisions and recommendations will be maintained.

8. Failure to successfully complete the development plan requirements or to achieve the departmental standards over a period of two years would initiate a recommendation for a terminal appointment contract.

New Business

Motion from Senator Rink

Senator Rink moved that the Faculty Senate accept the responsibility for approving by majority vote of the Faculty Senate, nominations to the Board of Governors for the Faculty Club from nominations submitted by the Committee on Committees. Senator Davig seconded the motion. The Faculty Senate will consider that motion as unfinished business at its September 14, 1998, meeting.

Report from the Council on Academic Affairs: Senator Enzie

Senator Enzie moved approval of the following proposals from the Council on Academic Affairs. Senator Gale seconded that motion which was approved.

From the College of Allied Health and Nursing, Department of Health Information, a new minor in Health Information and the Department of Medical Services Technology, a new Medical Transcription Certificate program.

Adjournment

Senator Enzie moved that the Senate adjourn. It adjourned at 4:07 p.m.

____________________________

Charles C. Hay III

Faculty Senate Secretary

May 4, 1998

After a ten-minutes recess to allow the new senators to be seated, Chair Janssen called to order the organizational meeting of the 1998-1999 Faculty Senate. The new members of the Senate are: Margaret Baxter, Model Laboratory School; Larry Collins, Loss Prevention & Safety; Preston Elrod, Criminal Justice; Seth Gakpo, Economics & Finance; William Goodwin, Music; John Harley, Biological Science; Marianne McAdam, Physical Education; Bruce MacLaren, Earth Sciences; James Robert Miller, Philosophy & Religion; Sue Strong, Administration Counseling & Educational Studies; Jacqueline Vance, Model Laboratory School; and John Wernegreen, Physics & Astronomy.

The following members of the Senate were absent:

J. Beck*	S. Black	M. Bright
J. Culross	P. Dean	G. Denham
S. Hoover*	M. LeVan	C. Lewis
J. McCord	N. Mackinnon	M. Myers*
D. Gale	A. Schick*	J. Thomas
R. Thompson	J. Vance*	V. Wisenbaker*
M. Yoder

*Indicates prior notification to the Senate Secretary

Remarks from the President: Senator Funderburk

President Funderburk welcomed the new Senators. He told them that they would be involved in many important activities over the next year and that he appreciated their time and dedication to the institution.

Remarks from the Executive Committee: Senator Janssen

Senator Janssen welcomed the new members and called their attention to the dates for the 1998-1999 Senate meetings to be held in the South Room of the Keen Johnson Building.

New Business

Election of the Senate Chair

Three persons were nominated for the position of Faculty Senate Chair at the April meeting of the Senate. Those nominated were Senators Janssen, MacLaren, and Miller.

The results of the balloting were: Senator Janssen 31 votes, Senator Miller 15 votes, and Senator MacLaren 10 votes. Thus, Senator Janssen was elected Faculty Senate Chair for the 1998-1999 academic year.

Election of the Senate Secretary

Senator Rink nominated Charles Hay to serve as Faculty Senate secretary for the 1999 calendar year. Senator Kilgore seconded the nomination. Mr. Hay was elected.

Election of Members to Standing Committees

Executive Committee (1 position)

Senators Harley, MacLaren, and Miller. Senators Harley and Miller tied in the voting. Senator Miller withdrew and Senator Harley was selected.

Committee on Elections (3 positions)

Senator McAdam was nominated and elected.

Senator Kilgore was nominated and elected.

Senator Biesinger was nominated and elected.

Committee on Rules (1 position)

Senator Huebner was nominated and elected.

Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities ( 1 position)

Senators Strong, Rosenberg, and Willingham were nominated. Senator Strong was elected.

COSFL Representative

Senator Sowders was nominated and elected.

COSFL Alternated (2 positions)

Senator Jones was nominated and elected.

Senator Miller was nominated and elected.

Adjournment

Senator Enzie moved that the Senate adjourn. It adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

_______________________

Charles C. Hay III

Faculty Senate Secretary