xt76hd7ns554 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dipstest/xt76hd7ns554/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1982-09-13  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, September 13, 1982 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, September 13, 1982 1982 1982-09-13 2020 true xt76hd7ns554 section xt76hd7ns554 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, SEPTEMBER 13, 1982

The University Senate met in regu1ar session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, September 13,
1982, in Room 106 of the CTassroom Budeing.

Dona1d N. Ivey, presided

Members absent: James App1egate*, Michae1 Baer, CharTes Barnhart, WiTTiam H.
B1ackburn*, Jack C. BTanton, Robert BTevins*, Robert N. Bostrom*, Connie A. Bridge*,
Thomas D. Brower, StanTey D. Brunn, Joseph T. Burch, David ChaIk, Dona1d B. C1app, D.
Kay C1awson*, Dan CTifford, Andy Coiner, CIifford J. Cremers*, Gary L. Cromwe11*,

David E. Denton, Kevin Dev1in, Richard C. Domek*, Joseph M. Dougherty, Herbert N.
Drennon, Nancy E. Dye*, Anthony EardIey, WiITiam Ecton*, Richard H. Furst, Art GaTTaher,
Jr., Michae1 Gonberg, Thomas C. Gray, Andrew J. Grimes, Anne T. Hahn, Joseph Hamburg,
S. Zafar Hasan*, Robert Hemenway*, WesTey HoTbrook, Joseph Howard, La Vonne Jaeger*,
Chery1 Jones, David T. Kao, Nancy Ke11ey, Peri Jean Kennedy*, Theodore A. Kotchen,
Robert G. Lawson*, Gwendo1en Lee*, PauI Mande1stam*, James R. Marsden*, Sa11y S.
Mattineg*, Marion E. McKenna*, John M. Mitche11, CIayton R. PauI, Robert RabeT,

Phi11ip w. Roeder*, Thomas A. Rush, Ed Sagan, Timothy H. Sineath, Jesse E. Sisken,

John T. Smith, Teresa Stathas, Marjorie Stewart, Joseph V. Swintosky, GTenn Terndrup,
John Thompson, Manue1 A. Tipgos, S. Sidney U1mer*, Wi11iam F. Wagner, Enid S. HaTdhart*,
Marc J. Na11ace, Terry Warren, Jesse Wei1, Char1es Nethington, Steven Yates, Thomas
ZentaTI

The Minutes of the Meeting of Apri1 12, 1982, were approved as circuTated.

Chairman Dona1d N. Ivey ca11ed on President SingIetary for some words of wisdom.

The President spoke to the Senate as foITows:

\~ I do, as usua1, and especia11y this year, want to we1come
you back to the campus for the beginning of another year, an
important year for a11 of us here at UK. There are many items
I want to comment very brieny on today and one in particu1ar
that I think I shou1d speak to you about. The others are more
or 1ess genera1 information. You have a1ready read the news
story that was re1eased 1ast week about enr011ment, but I
think something needs to be said about that. You a11 know from
the newspaper accounts that enr011ments on this campus are down
about two percent. This is a kind of guessing game at the mo—
ment. You never know unti1 sometime in October what the enr011—
ment is, and you have to go through a11 the business of the
difference in head counts and fu11-time equivaIents and a11 the
different ways that an academic bookkeeping system requires us
to measure things. At any rate, it is very c1ear to us that the
enr011ments on the main campus are going to be down some,
probabTy in the vicinity of 23,000 head count. The two per-
cent decrease overa11 is made a 1itt1e more dramatic, I think,
when you Took at the fact the entering freshman enr011ment is
down about five and one—ha1f percent. That is a change, and
it is worth saying something about or specu1ating about. No—
body knows for sure what causes a11 these specific changes or
aIteration in patterns, but I think there are a number of
items that we ought to at 1east be aware of. I suspect it has

*Absence exp1ained

 

 -2-

something to do with the population figures themselves. You know
we have been fortunate, I think, in not having experienced the
decline in numbers as soon as many other institutions in the
country have. That may have something to do with the fact that
Kentucky has had historically a relatively low percentage of its
college age population actually going on to college. At any rate,
that is part of this trend. There are fewer students in the
'pipeline' total. I think that is beginning to show up. It is
also true that there is a much sharper economic focus on us now
than there has been in recent years. It has been increasing but
it probably is more directly focused on us today than I can remem—
ber. Not just the inflation, that is part of it, but the cuts

in student aid, the increase in cost of tuition, all the rest of
it you probably already know about. I would suggest the possi—
bility, although nobody could really assert this claim with any
finality, that perhaps we may be seeing in that figure a falling
off of freshman applicants. You may be seeing the first reaction
to our tentative discussions and policy statements up to now about
the selective admissions policy at UK. All of those things go
into it, but you need to know that a significant figure is that
the entering freshman class is down over five percent. There are
some interesting trends or continuing trends and different trends
inside the institution. The college enrollments, I think, are
worthy to note. Agriculture is down another 3.6 percent. That

is a continuing trend. Communications is down four percent. I
believe that is the first decline in enrollment in Communications
since the College was organized. Education is down in excess of
l3 percent; a continuing trend but certainly one of the most dra—
matic alterations in the Institution. Social Work is down l2.8
percent; a continuing downward trend. The Graduate School is

down nearly four percent. We need to pay close attention to that
because of the special nature of this Institution in terms of its
responsibility in the State for graduate work. Dentistry is down
eight percent but that is a planned reduction. Those enrollments,
as you know, are a deliberate design to restrict an increase.
Business and Economics is down in excess of nine percent. That is
a combination of several things—~self selection being part of it
but restrictive or selective admissions being the other part. The
interesting thing is to some degree that a little over half shows
up as an increase in enrollment in Arts and Sciences. The arith—
metic of that is not lost on anybody. This is about a two and
one—half percent increase in the Arts and Sciences enrollment.
Female enrollment, which has been increasing for the past l5 years,
is down three percent plus at the undergraduate level. It doubles
that figure at the graduate level. For the first time in awhile,
there is a change in the enrollment pattern as it affects females.
Black enrollment is slightly up, approximately three percent, 2.8,
I believe. It continues the pattern that is here. It is a slow
increase, and I think there are those who wish we would make more
dramatic gains, but at least we continue to move into the right
direction. We are doing what we can. I would note for you also
along with that we are beginning to enjoy considerably a higher
success rate for black students who are choosing to come to UK,
and I think that is important. Part—time enrollment is up. What
that means is that the full—time equivalent figures will be down.

 

 Home Economics is up five percent; Nursing is up l3 percent, having
to do with the changes in the curriculum, I think, and with the
fact, I suspect, that the final approval of the program change was
instituted late enough in the year. We haven't seen the final
impact of that yet. I think you may see another surge even next
year in the Nursing program. That remains to be seen.

All that brings us to some mention of another topic which
may very much be in your discussions today and that is the question
of selective admissions policy of the University. You recall the
Prichard Committee Report recommended that this University in
particular, and the others if they chose to, move to a more selec-
tive admissions policy. They made that recommendation to the
Council on Higher Education. The Council on Higher Education
endorsed it, recommended that UK do this; we took the matter to
our Board of Trustees in the form of a general policy statement
which they have adopted. The policy statement has since been
turned over to the Senate Council and, I take it, the appropriate
committees of the Senate to make specific recommendation for the
Board's consideration and adoption. This is the process we are
now engaged in. Since you have yet to have your own say and
your own debates about this, I would only, at this point, want to
make a couple of statements to you. The first one is that timing
is important. First, they wanted us to do it this year which was
impossible. They want us to institute it by the fall of next
year. That being the case we need to get some kind of policy in
place very soon. I am told and am not surprised that, there are
members of the faculty, of the Senate and Senate Council who
are restless about the amount of time involved in making the
recommendation, and I think it is an appropriate concern or com—
plaint. My second generalization is we all need to understand we
are not going to put ourselves in a position of adopting some-
thing now on the grounds it is final and irreparable. I would
say to you that what we need to do is get ourselves in a position
to put something before our Board in a timely manner and hope-
fully we can all be in general agreement on, and it will serve us.
We can and will indeed continue to look at the admissions policy.
As a matter of fact, I think we will continue to look at the
admissions policy every year because it is the impact of what we
do. It is the actual experience of what happens to us that is
going to be important and I for one want to urge you to err on
the side of prudence in this matter. I remember years ago when
the University of Texas moved to institute its selective ad—
missions program, it started with a fairly modest program with
the full knowledge that you could raise it if the experience
factor showed that you needed to raise it. Historically, that is
exactly what happened. I think the important thing is not to
get ourselves out there with some kind of pressurized decision
about the future without proper experience built into it and
make us cut back on our standards. Let us build them up is
what I urge you to consider. I would hope you could get some—
thing in place for next year, and that we all understand it
will be a continuing process; as we establish these things we
may very well want to change them. Much would be based on our
own experience as well as on whatever projections we have now.

 

 -4-

I understand you are going to talk about the calendar and that
you will have sessions on your own about that matter. I will
wait with interest.

I want to comment on something that has been going on here
for the last year and a half: the Southern Association Self—Study
visitation and report. As you recall, this happens to us every
ten years or so. It is the second one in my time here. I want
to say some things about that Self—Study which I want you to hear
from me. First of all, I want to tell you we came out of this
study with ten recommendations from them and 90 suggestions.
There is a difference. A suggestion is something they tell us in
passing, and they picked many of those up from our own Self-Study
documents which many of you helped to prepare. First I want to
say something about the ten recommendations. I am pleased to
tell you it compared very favorably with the last time around.
Last time they gave us 44 recommendations. I consider that a
pleasant surprise. We found none of them particularly upsetting.
We were already working on it in one way or another. The Admin—
istration was required to respond to those by the first of
September, which we have done. Those responses go in now as part
of the Institution‘s basic evaluation that takes place in
December, and I would hope by that time there will be no question
of a reaccreditation for this Institution. I personally felt the
ten recommendations were alright and our response to them will
be sufficient to deal with that.

The 90 suggestions on the other hand are left for us to deal
with as we will. One right we have is to ignore them and in
some cases we are going to take advantage of that. Some other

recommendations we know we are already interested in. I am

going to farm those 90 suggestions out, in the five general direc-
tions- Some of them clearly apply to specific academic sectors,
and they will go through the Chancellors out to the respective
units, and we will get some response from them. Clearly some of
them are matters with University—wide interest, and we are going
to turn them over to the Senate Council and ask them to prepare

a response for us. A few of them have to do with the central
administration directly, and we will prepare the response for
that. Out of all of these analyses we will decide which of those
suggestions we think are meritorious, which ones we want to imple—
ment, and which ones we don't. That will be an exercise going on
on the campus during the year. It is one I hope to pay some
attention to myself, and I know that you will certainly have that
View. I don't know much else to say about the Southern Associa—
tion evaluation except that it was an enormous undertaking in
terms, not just of paper involved, but more importantly the

amount of time it takes from people like you. I say again, I
think it was the best report I have ever had an opportunity to

see at first hand. They did not find a lot here that upset them.
They were pleasantly surprised about a number of things: one of
them was, given the trauma this Institution has been going through
and recovering from in terms of its financial cuts, they found
here a degree of understanding and stability in their interviews
with faculty members which they thought remarkable and several
members of the team said that to me. I am particularly grateful

 

 -5-

for that. I don't think many people understand what this Insti—
tution has just gone through. I want you to know that outsiders
coming in here recognize the faculty's understanding of this
problem was significant and worthwhile. I am pleased to be able
to tell you that.

I would also like to add a few comments about the budget
situation as it stands now. It appears to me, and I hope it is
a good appearance, that the State revenue has stabilized and that
the budget cuts are behind us, at least for the immediate future.
The operating budget we are now under establishes the new base
which reflects those budget cuts which this Institution has made.
Our position freezes and other temporary restrictions on the bud~
gets were lifted back effective July I, and the units now have
some flexibility to manage their own budgets. It was a painful
thing but it was also, in our view, an unavoidable thing. I
personally feel we came through that 23 million dollar cut with
the most cooperative spirit of any institution I know, despite
the fact we went into that process as a seriously underfunded
institution. The program disruption was severe, but we did get
through it without sacrificing either our salary plans, which we
felt should be protected, and without terminating personnel,
particularly the tough question which has torn up other institu-
tions: the termination of tenured people. That being the case,
I want to again thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
I also want to praise you and say to you that this faculty re-
flected a maturity fairly rare in the academic world. I think
you reacted realistically and with some sense in what was clearly
a difficult problem. I am personally grateful to you because
you made what was clearly an almost intolerable situation at least
tolerable.

The last item I want to talk to you about today is the one
I feel is mine specifically to talk about, and that is the reor-
ganization. There are some comments which need to be made about
the reorganization and they need to be made by me and made to you.
First of all, let me tell you there was nothing new in my mind
about that. I have been thinking about such a reorganization for
sometime. I very nearly proposed it two years ago. I did not
at that time because of a kind of drift, I guess. I had become
more and more confirmed in my feeling that the time had come. I
am aware of the fact many people did not like the reorganization——
did not like any aspects of it. I don't believe there are many
forensic points I could make here to change that, but I do want
you to hear from me how I thought this should be done. My basic
View is that this Institution had simply outgrown its historic
structure. People disagree with that. I believe the size of it,
the numbers of students, faculty and staff, and the physical plant
continued to mushroom to where we now have in excess of 40,000
students in this system. In addition to that, the complexity fac»
tor continues to work, not just in graduate and undergraduate and
professional programs but also the teaching, research and service
functions. I felt that we need to improve the responsiveness of
this Institution. Everybody likes to use the word bureaucratic.
Any organization this size is bureaucratic. There is no way to
avoid it. I have never seen one that has. For all those reasons

 

 -5-

I, at least, had come to the conclusion that no one person was
very likely to sit on this thriving 'ant heap‘ with any degree

of comfort much less any degree of effectiveness much longer.
That is my view. I am perfectly willing for you to disagree with
it, but I want you at least to understand that is my View. I
also favored the Chancellor system which the Board, in fact,
adopted and I think you should know why it seemed best to me.

It is an established system. It has been tried lots of places
and works as well as anything works in the academic setting. It
was one that was familiar to me. I worked in such a system in
North Carolina. I was a Chancellor in the University in North
Carolina. I was part of the Texas system which also has Chan—
cellors. I was a consultant to Tennessee years ago when they
adopted their system which is closely akin, I think, to our own.
Not only was it a proven thing and not only was I familiar with
it, but I felt we could do it with the least amount of turmoil
inside. We had good people on hand and in a position to make it
work. That is what we have done. I would add that there are
certain characteristics and aims of the system that prompt me

to continue to believe it is the best thing for us to do. First
of all, we have to establish a sensible, practical and pragmatic
division of labor between the Chancellors and the President.

That is the whole concept. There are few clear—cut issues out
there, and that is where the problems come in time. Closely
allied to that is the need to place in the Chancellors' bailiwick
the authority to act and the responsibility for those actions.

I have committed to both of those things; they are going to have
the authority to act with finality in many areas and they are
going to be held accountable and responsible for those actions.
If you are looking for a fundamental definition of this or break—
down of the division here between the President and the Chancellors,
my view is that the day—to—day operations of the three units are
essentially in the hands of the respective Chancellors. Those
things that overreach sectors and are essentially statew de or
beyond and are policy matters will remain in the province of the
President. The aim, I say again, is to try to make this organiza-
tion somewhat more responsive. Academic planning, I hope, is
going to be somewhat more responsive than it has been. Student
services, I hope, will be more responsive. Business services

can certainly be more responsive. Just in the general run of
things it does seem to me that three Chancellors hopefully paying
close attention to their respective areas are going to be much
closer to the concerns and problems than one person who is essen—
tially trying to catch up with his paper work all the time. I
also know that some of you say, 'That's all well and good, but
what are you going to do?‘ I have heard the story that there are
some in this room who say this is my early retirement program.

I appreciate that. I would like to assure you, however, that is
not my intent. I am sure all of you know the arithmetic. If not,
let me tell you. I will be 6l years old next month so obviously
we need to be looking, and we will be looking, at some change in
this administration in the years immediately ahead of us. There
is no question about that. One of my hopes is to get this new
system shaken down and in operation by the time my successor here
is named. It is my belief that it is a proper province for the
President to recommend the administrative structure. I would hope

 

 -7-

what we put in pIace is an administrative structure that may weII
serve this University for the rest of this century. It may not
work that way, but it is my hope and indeed that is my wish and
that is what I am going to work for.

Let me summarize briefIy what I propose to be doing in this
new organization. First of aII, I am going to remain in what I
caII the poIicy position vis—a—vis of the Board of Trustees of
this University. That is not going to change. The basic Janus—
Iike position of facing the Board on one hand and facing the
University on the other remains an inescapabie function of the
President of the University, and I see no change in that. AII
matters of poIicy at the University of Kentucky wiII be matters
I wiII continue to be very cIoser concerned about. SecondIy,
we are going to continue at the IeveI of the centraI administra—
tion to do the basic budget pIanning and preparation of the
bienniaI budget requests. Those are two separate things. There
is a budget pIanning process that has to go on here and in the
buiIding of those budgets, the staff, incIuding the three Chan-
ceIIors, wiII be present and invoIved in every one of those deci—
sions. The basic thrust of the University is refiected in the
budget pIanning and in the budget requesting process. What is
going to change about the budget process is once we have made the
operating budgets, we are going to turn them over to the Chance]-
Iors for administration.

In addition to the budget and pIanning function we wiII aIso
be keeping the comptroIIer function. The comptroIIer function in
an institution this size is a significant one because he is the

person who prepares the officiaI financiaI records and reports of
the University. Those two functions, budget pIanning which teIIs
you where you want to go and the comptroIIer function which Iets
you Took back and teII you where you have been are absquter
essentiaI, and I think are University-wide and are properIy in
the province of the President.

We are going to keep personneI poIicy at the President's
IeveI. The overaII personneI poIicy of the Institution, not the
actuaI decisions on individuais.

The governmentaI reIations function wiII continue to be a
very important function for us both in terms of our IocaI foIk
in Lexington and our State Government. We wiII continue to have
a considerabie amount of deaIings with agencies and offices in
Washington and those are going to continue to be essentiaIIy
University—wide.

The deveIopment function of the University is going to con-
tinue, which is basicaIIy the fund raising arm, and it has been
one of the Iarger successes. It needs to be nourished. We are
going to continue to pay a Iot of attention to that. WhiIe there
is a great temptation to want to assume outside these waIIs that
'Ne can get private money to run this institution,’ such a
statement is simpIy not true. Private money is not going to run
an institution as Iarge as the University of Kentucky. The
State must suppIy the basic core support for this Institution.

 

 —8—

Otherwise, it will simply not amount to anything at all. What
the private dollars can do is to make some margin of difference.
We can do a number of things in this Institution with private
dollars that we could not and probably should not do with public
monies. All of those things are important for a university like
ours to be able to do. We are keeping the development function
at the President's level. The same is true with public relations.
While we are going to have some availability of that capability
in the three sectors, the basic thrust is still going to be
University—wide.

That is a general overview. Whatever time I gain, I do not
intend to spend nearly as much time raffling through papers that
I am not sure I ever needed to raffle. I think there is a sub—
stantial possibility I will have an increase in time. I have
two things in mind for that increase in time. One is that I ex-
pect to get around the State more and talk to people out there
about this University and its needs, aspirations and ambitions,
for whatever that is worth. Secondly, I would like to have more
time to deal with some of the internal problems of this Univer—
sity that the President hardly ever gets any time to deal with
under the present structure because of the great mass of paper.
For example, I have a report from the Research Committee which
I have been holding. The paper has some good suggestions and
deserves serious attention. I think we need to address that
problem, and I want to be part of that. Another area of interest
is what we are going to do about our Southern Association sugges—
tions. I want to have some time to do what some of you are able
to do and that is to ponder some of those things and to make
decisions about them. Basically, whatever time I gain, and it
is my intent to gain some, I propose to use that time in both
those ways. I did that deliberately. There is a footnote to all
this I wish to make. There are a number of decisions about this
reorganization that have not been made, and they have not been
made deliberately. They have not been made because it is nw
feeling they were matters that had very strong academic overtones
and consequences. We have said we will not attempt to settle
these until we go through the normal processes of the University.
For example, we have not yet decided on the structure of the
Graduate School and the role and specific reporting functions of
the Graduate Dean and the Coordinator of Research. We will make
that decision this year. We know that has to be addressed. We
want that addressed and when the recommendation comes to me I will
refer it to the Senate Council for their advice. What I am saying
is that we have no interest in trying to do that kind of thing
without full input from you. I do not propose to make any recom-
mendation to the Board of Trustees on that matter until I am
reasonably sure everybody has had their say. You need to hear
that, and you need to hear that from me.

There is another feeling I detect out there and that is the
suspicion about some hidden agenda about this Senate and its reor—
ganization. I want to tell you there is no hidden agenda about
this Senate, at least on my part. If there is to be any discus—
sion of any reorganization of this body, it will come in the form
of a proposed change in the governing regulations, which will come

 

 -9-

from an appropriate faculty group. And if it does come, it will
be treated like other proposed changes in the governing regula-
tions, which means it will be given full study and debate includ—
ing this body but certainly will be referred by me to the Senate
Council.

I have very real concerns about some of the problems in this
Institution that stem from our basic assumption that all the units
of this Institution are just alike and can be treated alike. That
is a mistake. We get into a bit of trouble by that mistake. We
create a lot of problems for ourselves. There are all kinds of
ways to approach those problems. But I say to you again that
before there is any resolution to that matter, there will be full
debate and discussion.

There are some concerns I have about my own role that I have
withheld making any judgment about. The whole question about
what my relationship now is going to be with the Privilege and
Tenure Committee within the chancellor system is one of those con—
cerns. Another question is what my role will be concerning appeals.
I am not comfortable at this point about that and before I make
any kind of recommendation, particularly if it involves a change
in the governing regulations, I would propose to talk with the
Senate Council and get their advice about that before I come to
any decision. Those are fairly serious questions that involve,
at least as far as I can see, the question of faculty rights as
opposed to administrative preference. It may be you would be
happy for me to take myself out of that process, but at least I
want to know that. Those are the kinds of questions which will

be on my agenda at the Senate Council during this year.

Those are basically the things I want to say to you about
the reorganization. Obviously, I would have preferred that the
reorganization go on in a much more routine way than it has. I
am told by some of my good friends on the faculty there are those
out there whose noses are ‘out of joint' because they did not
feel they were properly consulted. To the degree you are offended,
I apologize for that. I do want you to understand I consider
it to be an administrative prerogative to recommend to the Board
the administrative structure of the University.

I close my comments here this afternoon by saying to you
that we have done this. I have taken the reorganization to the
Board and the Board has acted on it, and I now propose to make
this system work as best I can. I will say to you, there is no
way it is going to work without some breakdowns and a few fowl—
ups. It will take a full year, in my opinion, for the Chancellors
and the President to get this thing shaken down. I do want you
to know we spent an enormous number of hours this summer, the
three Chancellors and myself, in very close examination of these
respective functions, and how they could best work, and how we
can become more responsive than we have been. We are going to try
to make it work. We are going to try every way we know to make
it work. My final plea to you this afternoon is to join us in
that effort, helping us to make it work. You can do that, you

 

 -10-

know. Let's give it a chance and see if there is some possi—
bility that it might work to all of our benefits. I will tell
you this. I will not hesitate to change the system if I find it
desirable to change it. There are all kinds of other options
available to us. I don't feel we are committed to anything ex—
cept to get on with our business and make it go. I believe we
ought to be bound together by the basically common desire to make
the place somewhat more responsive, and I hope that we can. We
are going to bend our efforts in that direction, and I don't want
you to act in the absence of this appeal for me. I really want
you to help us. This Institution has enough problems without

our generating unnecessary and inconsequential conflicts from
within. I think while we have all the problems of most institu—
tions, we also have all the promise of a lot of institutions.
There is no substitute in my mind for us in our immediate future
for some realism about where we are, what our problems are, and
what our prospects are realistically. There has always been a
formidable element in this faculty and did undertake to understand
those things and help do what we and all other institutions must
do. We are going to do the best we can with what we have. We
are going to continue to try to give the State of Kentucky a
better University than it has been willing to afford. To the
degree that is possible, you will have to play a very, very,

very large role. Thank you very much. I hope you have a good
year. I am glad to have you back.”

The Chairman recognized the new members of the Senate. He also introduced Elbert
W. Ockerman, Secretary of the Senate; Martha Ferguson, Recording Secretary; Celinda
Todd, Administrative Assistant; Stanford