xt73n58cjv69 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt73n58cjv69/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1984-03-12  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 12, 1984 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 12, 1984 1984 1984-03-12 2020 true xt73n58cjv69 section xt73n58cjv69 LNNVERSHY OF KENTUCKY



February 29, 1984

Members, University Senate
The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
March 12, 1984 at 3:00 p.m. in the Whitehall Classroom Build-
ing, 106.

Minutes of 13 February meeting.



Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section IV., 2.1.3,

Non—degree Students. (Circulated under date of February 27,


Proposed changes in University Senate Rules, Section 1., rela—
tive to reassigning Senate committee charges. (Circulated un—

der date of 22 February 1984.)

Consideration of a recommendation (#6) from the 1982—83 Senate
Research Committee to the Administration. (Circulated under
date of 21 February 1984.)

Update on merger. Discussion on merger.

Elbert W. Ockerman




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March l2,
l984, in Room lO6 of the Classroom Building.

E. Douglas Rees, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: Kathy Ashcraft, Charles E. Barnhart, Susan M. Belmore*, Jack C.
Blanton, James A. Boling*, Peter P. Bosomworth*, Robert N. Bostrom, David Bradford,
James Buckholtz, Joseph T. Burch, Ellen Burnett, I. K. Chew*, Henry Cole*, Glenn B.
Collins*, Philip Dare, Donald F. Diedrich, Gadis J. Dillon*, Richard C. Domek*,
Herbert Drennon, Paul M. Eakin*, Anthony Eardley, William Ecton, Charles Ellinger,
Donald G. Ely*, Jackie Embry, Charles H. Fay*, Stanley Feldman, Nathan Floyd, Ray
Forgue*, Richard N. Furst, Art Gallaher, Jr.*, Charles P. Graves, C. Michael Gray,
Andrew J. Grimes*, John Hall*, Joseph Hamburg, S. Z. Hasan*, Robert Hemenway*,

Andrew J. Hiatt*, Raymond R. Hornback, John J. Just, Theodore A. Kotchen*, Robert
Lawson*, Edgar Maddox, Kenneth E. Marino*, Mike McCauley, Brad McDerman, Marcus T.
McEllistrem, Marion McKenna*, Martin J. McMahon, Jr.*, Mary Beth Messmer*, H. Brinton
Milward, William G. Moody*, Daniel N. Nelson, Robert C. Nobel, Clayton Omvig*, Mary
Anne Owens, Merrill Packer, Alan R. Perreiah, Janet Pisaneschi, David J. Prior*,
Robert Rabel*, Madhira D. Ram*, Kay RobinSon*, Nimberly Royster, Charles Sachatello*,
Edgar Sagan, Otis A. Singletary*, Harry A. Smith*, John T. Smith, Howard Sypher,
Kenneth Thompson, Marc J. Nallace*, Alfred D. Niner, Scott Yocum

The Minutes of the Meeting of February l3, l984, were approved as circulated.

Chairman Rees recognized Professor David Newburg who presented the following
Memorial Resolution on the death of Professor Jose Concon.

Jose Madrid Concon l932-l984

Jose Madrid Concon, Associate Professor of Nutrition
and Food Science for the College of Home Economics at the
University of Kentucky, died at his home on March 4, l984.

Born in Manila, Philippines, December 8, l932, to
Jose S. Concon and Gloria M. Madrid, he completed his
elementary education in Sorsogon Province in l944 and his
high school education in Naga City, Philippines. He earned
his Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry at the Univer-
sity of the Philippines in l955. He taught at Feati Univer-
sity in Manila on a part-time basis from l958 to l96O while
working for a local industry whereupon he moved to Lafayette,
Indiana to earn a Master of Science in Biochemistry from
Purdue University in l963, and a Ph.D. in biochemistry in
l965. After spending three years at the North Star Research
Institute in Minnesota, Dr. Concon joined the Nutrition and
Food Science faculty at U.K. in-l969 as an assistant pro-
fessor. In l975, he was promoted to associate professor,
and immediately was called upon to serve his department as
acting chairman for a year while a national search to fill
this position was conducted.

*Absence explained


 Dr. Concon was very committed to his profession and
to the University community. He sat on the University
Senate from l970 to T973, and again from l98l to the pre-
sent. Throughout his career at this university, he
volunteered for extra committee work when the need was
apparent, and enthusiastically applied himself to the tasks
at hand.

Dr. Concon's professional memberships included the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
American Chemical Society, the Nutrition Today Society,
the American Home Economics Association, the New York
Academy of Science and the Southern Association of Agricul-
tural Scientists, for which he chaired Biochemistry ses-
sions at its annual meetings in l983 and l984. He had also
served in l970—73 as Monitor for North America on the Area
of Genetic Improvements of Food & Feed Crops for the Inter-
national Union of Nutritional Sciences Information Systems.

Dr. Concon was a true scholar, with a breadth of ex-
pertise encompassing art, music (particularly classical
piano), the classics, botany and several diverse aspects
of nutrition. He taught a wide selection of undergraduate
and graduate courses in which his breadth of knowledge,
enthusiasm for the subject, and empathy for the students
themselves recognized these qualities by selecting Dr.
Concon to receive the outstanding teacher award in the
College of Home Economics. In addition, many of our
graduate students benefitted by working with Dr. Concon
on his ongoing research as part of their graduate training.

The research performed by Dr. Concon also reflected
his diversity of interests and breadth of knowledge. As
a cereal chemist, he improved a technique to combine
cereal and legume proteins to optimize their biological
value. As a nutritionist he devised a diet which greatly
prolonged the life of nephrectomized animals. As a food
toxicologist, he studied the relationship between cooking
conditions and the production of carcinogens in foods; and
was the first to demonstrate the carcinogenic potential
of black pepper. While working on these projects, he also
wrote a manuscript, ”The Toxicology of Foods,“ which was
over 2,200 pages long. He was putting this manuscript
into its final form for publication by AVI Publishing Co.
at the time of his sudden death last Sunday.

He is survived by his wife, Jayne Wheeler Concon, his
mother, Gloria Madrid Estipona of Naga City, Philippines,
and six siblings, Isidoro Madrid Concon, Maria Elena Madrid
Guzman, Caesar Madrid Concon, Oliva Badong, Antonio Estipona,
and Gloria Acoba.



Because of his good cheer, kindness to peers and stu-
dents, industry, intelligence, and enthusiasm, Dr. Jose
Madrid Concon will be missed greatly on this campus.

Mr. Chairman, I request that this resolution be spread
upon the minutes of the University Senate, and that copies
be sent to the Concon family.

(Prepared by Professor David Newburg, Department of Nutrition and Food Science)

Chairman Rees directed that the Resolution be made a part of these minutes
and-that copies be sent to the family. The Senators were asked to stand for a
moment of silence in tribute and respect to Prefessor Jose Madrid Concon.

The Chairman made the following announcements:

”The first announcement concerns the policy statement that
the Senate Council prepared and transmitted to President Singletary
concerning the funding of education in Kentucky. Much of that
statement was printed last Wednesday in the Kernel. (A copy is
at the end of these minutes.)

The considerations of the Senate Council were these:

'It is in the best interest of the University faculty
that the quality of primary and secondary education be
improved and that there be no further cutback in the funding
of higher education. Without an increase in State revenues
the entire system of education in Kentucky will likely be
in horrible shape. That means the University system, in-
cluding the University of Kentucky, undoubtedly will have
cutbacks in budget once again. With the State's economy
not improving as we would hope it might, increased revenue
means increased taxes. For that reason the Senate Council
urges legislators to support Governor Collins' proposal
to raise taxes for the purpose of education.‘

The Senate Council will send its statement to various
newspapers and to various Kentucky legislators. We are
under no illusion that this will overwhelm all opposition—-
we hope it helps, and it will certainly demonstrate our
position and concern. A number of senate members have made
notable efforts to aid the cause of higher education in
Kentucky and education in general. Among these are Pro—
fessor Applegate and Dean Furst, who in previous months
wrote excellent columns in the Herald—Leader concerning
the critical importance of education and the support of
education to Kentucky. Professor Connie Wilson has met with
Senator Moloney. Students oftentimes are more active than
the faculty, and David Bradford and other students have met
with legislators.

Numbers are very important in the political process
of a democracy. We can all do something as individuals
whether as citizens, faculty members, or parents. Professor
Jewell provided us with names of senators and representatives
from Fayette County. I encourage you to write a short



letter to your legislators supporting increased revenues for
education. Please use your own stationary and stamps. En—
courage your friends to do the same.

The second announcement is a word about the organization
COSFL (Congress of Senate Faculty Leaders.) Membership in-
cludes representatives from each of the state universities and
members meet on an as needed basis about once every six weeks
during an academic year. Last Spring during the primary cam—
paign for governor we met with some of the candidates and were
able to obtain from the gubernatorial candidates, including
now Governor Collins, a commitment that the governor would meet
periodically with members of COSFL. Such a meeting is now
being set up through the Chairman of COSFL, Steve Smith, a pro-
fessor of Law at the University of Louisville. Generally we
have three or four of our Senate Council members at these meet—
ings—Connie Wilson, Don Ivey, Don Hochstrasser and myself. COSFL
has prepared and is in the process of preparing position papers
of considerable importance to the universities in the state
system. There is a position on formula funding, which states in
part ”the criteria by which a University is funded should aim
for excellence. Enrollment driven funding cannot respond to the
needs of the University library and University research and thus
it fails to promote excellence in these two critical components
of a university." There are also statements concerning the
Council on Higher Education, the collegial system of governance,
and merger of the state supported universities. (More on this

During this legislative session members of COSFL are meet—
ing with individual legislators on behalf of higher education
in Kentucky. In meeting with and informing legislators, there
are duplicating expenses and also transportation and lodging
expenses for those coming from the most distant state univer-
sities. While that is not a problem for those of us at the
University of Kentucky, it is a problem for those far away.
COSFL has asked the Chairman of each Senate to seek small do—
nations (a few dollars) on a voluntary basis from the members
of their senate and faculty. Senators or other faculty members
who wish to contribute to COSFL may do so by sending a check
made out to 'COSFL Political Action' c/o Professor Harry Robe,
Department of Psychology, Western Kentucky University, Bowling
Green, Kentucky 42l0l. The check will be deposited in a Credit
Union account there set up for this purpose. I should say
explicitly that this money is not used for COSFL meetings but
for meetings with legislators concerning legislation on higher

Third, reminder to the committee chairmen——we will send notice
shortly that annual committee reports should be prepared for our
April meeting. Also the Senate Council will be getting in touch
with people concerning committee assignments for the coming year.

I ask your advice on what you would like to discuss in the
open discussion at the April meeting of the senate. I suggest



Recommendation #8 from the Research Committee Report which deals
with what is called ”The Need to Improve the Communications System
and Simplify the Procedure for Conducting University Research
Business.” The recommendation proposes that the University of
Kentucky Research Foundation assume a full service function for
project accounting, hiring of personnel and purchasing research
committee. Two benchmark institutions in this report, Ohio

State and Purdue, already have this model. There has been con—
siderable interest and discussion in this area. I will explore
this matter with the Research Committee and individuals.“

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Goldstein who wanted to know if the proposal
would require additional funding for the running of UKRF. Chairman Rees allowed that
was one of the things which could be pursued and asked of the representatives from

Dr. Neil wanted to know if there were other options for discussion, and the Chair-
man assured him any suggestions could be made. There were none so the Chairman said
they would proceed along the line of Recommendation #8 and would make arrangements for
discussion at the next meeting.

The first action item concerned the proposed change in the University Senate Rules


pertaining to admission of non—degree students. The Chairman recognized Professor
Robert Bostrom. Professor Bostrom, on behalf of the Senate Council, presented the

proposed change in the rules, Section IV., 2.l.3, Non-degree Students. This change
had been circulated to members of the senate on February 27, l984.

The Chairman recognized Professor Robert Altenkirch for statistics on the non-
degree student.

Professor Altenkirch made the following remarks:

”When we worked on the selective admissions policy last year,
there were several loopholes we did not have time to plug because
we had to get the policy to the Board of Trustees. The non-degree
student category is one of those. By ”loophole“ I mean that a student
who wants to attend UK will find a way to circumvent the selective
admissions policy and come even though he/she does not meet the ad-
missions criteria which have been developed. If you think the students
will not find those, you are mistaken. For example, the last time I
spoke here I mentioned to you that Summer School l984 is the last
time that a student can circumvent completely the selective admissions
policy. Summer school applicants for first time freshmen are up.
People are already using this vehicle to circumvent selective admis-
sions. The non—degree student category as it is now written in the
University Senate Rules is another means of circumventing the selec-
tive admissions policy. What we have proposed will help to eliminate
that problem. The following statistics are from the Fall of l982.


No student can enroll at UK if he/she has been suspended from
the University. He has to be reinstated. No student can transfer
from another university if he/she is not in good standing when he/she
left that school. No one may continue to enroll as a non—degree
student after earning twenty-four semester hours in this status with-
out the special permission of the Dean of the College. What is being


 done is to treat a non—degree student in the same fashion as a transfer
student. The differences in the ruIes are minimaI except for the re-
quired waiting period.”

Current Proposed

Waiting period No Yes
beyond HS

Non—enroITment of Yes Yes

EnroIIment Iimitation Yes (2 years) Yes (24 hours)

EnroIIment after Yes Yes

Transfer of credit No Yes
toward degree

FALL 1982


AgricuIture 7
AIIied HeaIth 34
Architecture —
Arts & Sciences

Business & Economics IO
Communications 5
Education 12
Engineering 6
Fine Arts

Home Economics


SociaI Professions



Ft. Knox

Off Campus



Spring l984

Undergraduate # %
Degree l8 22
Non—degree l8 22
Auditor 4l 49

TOTAL 77 93

Graduate 5 6
Law l l


The Chairman recognized Professor Gesund who wanted to know if this policy
would discourage some people who just wanted to take courses in the evening school.
He felt the University was discouraging people who were going to school just to
learn and asked where the Donovan Scholars fit into the policy. Professor Altenkirch's
reply was that the University was not discouraging anyone except one category and
that is a person who was within two years of high school graduation who cannot
according to the projections function effectively as a student. Once a student is
out of high school for two years there are no restrictions except for the twenty—four
credit hour limit. The current limitation is two years. Professor Altenkirch felt
this policy was less restrictive than the current one. His understanding was that the
Donovan Program was a scholarship program which provides scholarships for students who
are 65 and over. The admissions requirements are waived for an auditor. Professor
Gesund asked about the Donovan scholars who were taking courses for credit. Prof-

fessor Altenkirch said of the eighteen (l8) non—degree students in the Spring of l984,
fifty—six percent of those already have a degree. Forty-one students are auditors.

He said if the students didn't meet the admissions standards they could be admitted

by exception. He felt that was a more effective way to deal with those students than
to write a rule specifically to those people.

Professor Rea was curious about some of the problems that might arise in the
two—year regulation. For example, if a student had all ”A‘s”, high ACT scores and
wanted to take a couple of courses, but did not want to enter college, would the Uni—
versity forbid the admission. Professor Altenkirch’s reply was that the admissions
policy did not speak to the degree student. If a student wanted to participate in a
program not directed toward a degree, that would be the student's choice.

Professor Ivey emphasized that the policy did not address students who were
eligible to enter the University but was for students who could not meet the admissions
requirements. Dean Ockerman said some students elected to be admitted because they
qualified on the basis of their grade point average and ACT scores, but thirty—four
percent of good students take the ACT by the end of the junior year . The Univer-
sity under current circumstances can admit practically all those people. Professor
Altenkirch pointed out that only about ten or fifteen percent of the non-degree
students would be affected--this would total less than a hundred.

Professor Neil asked, if a student did not wish to pursue a degree and yet did not
want to be limited by the twenty-four credit hour rule and enrolls as a ”student“, was
there a regulation or criteria that the student had to satisfy in order to maintain a
good standing or else put on probation and eventually be suspended? Professor


 Altenkirch said all_students had to meet grade point average standards. Professor
Neil was talking about someone registering as a degree student. Professor Altenkirch
said there were plenty of students in engineering who do that.

Professor Neil moved an amendment to read:
”None of the above regulations apply to the Donovan Scholars.”

Professor Altenkirch had no problem with the amendment but said the door was
being opened to every group who did not quite fit the mold. He felt it was better
to allow the Exceptions Committee to handle the ”exceptions” because the rules
-would get thicker for no good reason.

Professor Bostrom said the committee felt it would not hurt even the Donovan
scholars when the student finished twenty—four hours to have the dean or someone
look at the record to see if the student was indeed progressing toward a degree and
tell the student perhaps he/she should be thinking about a degree program. He thought
after twenty-four hours an advising session should be provided. Professor Altenkirch
did not feel the Donovan scholars constituted enough students to write a rule.

Professor Pival wanted to know if the hours accepted had to be earned at the
University of Kentucky. Professor Altenkirch's answer was that the rules spoke to
non-degree students at this University.

Professor Gesund suggested a change which was accepted to add editorially ”at this
University“ to the second sentence in the fifth paragraph of the proposal. The sen~
tence would then read:

“Applicants who have earned fewer than 24 semester credit hours
at this University must meet the University‘s standards . . .”

The previous question was moved, seconded and passed. The proposal, as changed
editorially, passed unanimously and reads as follows:

IV. 2.l.3 Non-degree Students

Individuals who do not meet the regular admission
requirements but who desire to take courses for
credit may apply for admission as non—degree stu—
dents. To be admitted as a non—degree student,
an applicant must meet the following criteria:

l. The high school class of a non-degree appli—
cant must have graduated at least two years
prior to the applicant's anticipated semester
of enrollment unless the applicant will be on
active military duty during his/her tenure as
a non—degree student or the applicant has
been admitted by exception according to IV.,
2.l.l d .



Former University degree students shall not

be admitted as non-degree students without a
bachelor's degree or its equivalent unless they
left the University in good standing or have
been reinstated following academic suspension
according to V., 3.l.6.

_ No one may continue to enroll as a non-degree
student after earning 24 semester hours in
this status without the special permission
of the dean of the college in which the stu—
dent is registered.

Non—degree students may become degree seeking students
after meeting regular University and program admissions
criteria. Applicants who have earned fewer than 24
semester credit hours at this University must meet

the University‘s standards for automatic acceptance

as first—time freshmen. Applicants who have earned

24 or more semester hours will be considered trans—

fer students for admission purposes.

Non-degree students must meet course prerequisites

or obtain the consent of the instructor to enroll in
a course. Successful completion of course work as

a non-degree student does not ensure admission as a
degree—seeking student; credit earned as a non-degree
student will be evaluated for applicability toward a
degree by the dean of the college in which the stu-
dent is registered. No graduate or professional
credit is awarded for courses taken while a student
is enrolled as a non-degree student.

Implementation Date: Fall, l984

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom to present the proposed changes
in University Senate Rules, Section I., relative to standing committee changes. Pro—
fessor Bostrom, on behalf of the Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposal
which had been circulated to members of the senate under date of February 22, l984.


There were no questions or discussion, and the proposed changes which passed
unanimously read as follows:


In University Senate Rules, Section 1., 4.l.8, add to
the charge of the Senate Committee on Academic
Organization and Structure the responsibility to:


e. Study and report to the Senate on matters
pertaining to faculty size and strength,
and student enrollment.



In University Senate Rules, Section I., 4.l.3 add
to the charge of the Senate Committee on Academic


4. Study the use, renovation, and need for
space (including classrooms) and equipment
relevant to academic programs and functions.

Again Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom. Professor Bostrom, on
behalf of the Senate Council, recommended approval of Recommendation #6 from the
l982-83 University Research Committee Report. Professor Bostrom felt the senate
should be convinced there was a need for adequate statistical consulting services at
the University and should be made available to all students. He said the Research
Committee and the Senate Council felt very strongly that the University ought to
have some statistical consultation procedure that would be available to anyone on a
demand basis and urged the senators to support the proposal.

There was no discussion or questions and the proposal which passed unanimously
reads as follows:


The University should provide adequate statistical
services and make these accessible to all research—
oriented faculty and for graduate student research.


The Research Committee report noted ”The existing
statistical consulting facilities provided by the
Statistical Laboratory are meager and inadequate.
Separate funds should be provided to the Lab so
that it can provide University—wide service.“ The
goal stated in the recommendation was ”to provide
statistical service consultation to researchers in
Medicine, Agriculture, Biological Sciences, Behavi-
oral Sciences, and other areas where statistical
evaluation of large blocks of information is impor—

Dr. Gani and Dr. Kryscio set forth in their Senate
presentation both the need for a statistical consul-
tation service and the need for a solid financial
base so that the service can be adequately rendered.

Chairman Rees spoke to the senate on the merger:

”I want to say a few words about the talk concerning mer-
ger involving the University of Kentucky and the University of
Louisville. The Senate Council and the Senate Committee on
Academic Organization and Structure have been following this
and as Council Chairman I shall share with you some thoughts.



Mutual cooperation between the universities certainly seems

in order; I do not think anyone would argue with that. But mer—
ger in the literal sense I feel is doomed. It is most unlikely
that the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville
will merge into one institution. Regardless of what else happens,
each university will retain its separate and identifiable basket-
ball team along with their TV and tournament appearances and
income. Simple arithmetic indicates that if there are twice the
TV appearances and twice the tournaments, you will have roughly
twice the money. Each institution will retain its name (I think
it is safe to say.)

It is important to note that each university is set up
under state statute and has its own governing system. Our
governance differs from that to the University of Louisville.

It is also unlikely to me that the two Medical Centers will
be severed from their parent university and merged into a single
and separate institution. I think the last thing the leaders in
the Commonwealth want is another public institution vying for state
monies. Faculty who think about it would not want that to happen
either. Moreover, each Medical Center as a whole is much more
intimately intertwined with programs and colleagues on its own campus
than with programs or colleagues at the other university and, thus,
I feel merging of the two Medical Centers into an independent
institution makes little functional sense as well as little politi-
cal sense.

Once one starts delving into the detailed implication of any
merger concept, a multitude of problems unfold. One issue was
raised last month (February l2) in the Herald—Leader editorial con-
cerning the teaching hospitals. This was quite a good editorial.
It says:


'The state Council on Higher Education has passed a
resolution that could be the first step toward merging
the medical schools of the University of Kentucky and
the University of Louisville. That also could be the
first step toward merging the two institutions altogether.

Merging the medical schools is an intriguing possi-
bility. They are costly endeavors. They necessarily
duplicate programs and services. Merging them would set
an example that would make it easier to force other state
universities to cut needless academic duplication.

But there are problems with the notion of merging
the medical schools, too. And two of the biggest prob—
lems concern the hospitals that are connected to the
two medical schools.

Both these hospitals have financial problems that
stem from their treatment of indigent patients. UK has



attempted to solve its problem by cutting back on the
number of indigents it serves. U of L and the city of
Louisville have tried to solve their problems by turning
the U of L teaching hospital over to Humana Inc., the
Louisville—based corporation that runs for—profit
hospitals around the country. The state, the city of
Louisville and Jefferson County subsidize indigent care
at the hospital.

That raises obvious questions: Who would run UK's
Albert B. Chandler Medical Center if the two medical
schools were merged? And how would the problems of
indigent care be resolved?

It would seem to make little sense to have merged
medical schools without having unified management of
the two hospitals. We have serious reservations, though,
about turning over the management of any publicly fi-
nanced hospitals to for—profit corporations.

Nor is it clear that private management of public
hospitals really offers a solution to the problems of
indigent care. Humana is asking for an increased
subsidy for its operation of the Louisville hospital.
That suggests that no matter who manages indigent care,
the problem remains the same: too many patients and
not enough money.

Merging the schools or combining the management
of their hospitals won't solve the indigent-care pro—
blem. The council, the legislature and local govern-
ments have to address that problem if any proposal for
merging the schools is to have a chance of success.‘

I would say that the indigent care problem is a long way
being solved. If that is the first step, 'merger' is an
longer way from being solved.

In that same Sunday newspaper there was a lengthy article
by Cheryl Truman on 'The State Taking a Look at College Duplica-
tion.I By duplication is meant duplication of programs and
faculty. Of course, when the second university was built in
the state we had duplication but now, with the investment that
the State has in any given University, it is unlikely the
Legislature would eliminate a university as a whole. So the
elimination of duplication means the elimination of programs
and faculty. President Singletary has addressed this point as
follows, and I will paraphrase.

'Sure you can eliminate programs and thereby
cut costs, but do you save money? What are
the criteria and standards for determining

These are excellent points——for if you are to consider savings,
you must consider total value against cost. What is the economic
value of UK and its programs to the state? To what extent is



the University an attraction to business, to industry, to indivi—
dual families?-—not only from the viewpoint of coming to Kentucky
but from the viewpoint of staying here! What are the savings in
tuition, in transportation and in other costs to Kentucky parents
by virtue of having a major University with a broad spectrum of
programs within the Commonwealth? The existence and financial
well-being of many businesses depend on the University—-to wit,
the recent Business of the Year award to the University by the
Kentucky Chamber of Commerce. And so on. Dr. Furst, Dean of the
College of Business and Economics, wrote a fine article for the
Herald—Leader on