xt79kd1qjw8x https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt79kd1qjw8x/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1992-03-09 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 9, 1992 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 9, 1992 1992 1992-03-09 2020 true xt79kd1qjw8x section xt79kd1qjw8x 7096 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, MARCH 9, 1992 The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 9, l992, in Room ll5 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building. Marcus T. McEllistrem, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided. Members absent were: Reginal J. Alston, Jim Arnett, Robert S. Baker, Bart Baldwin, Harry V. Barnard, Thomas 0. Blues*, Peter P. Bosomworth, Douglas A. Boyd, Martha Bruenderman, Joseph T. Burch, D. Allan Butterfield, Rutheford B Campbell, Jr.*, Clyde R. Carpenter, Ben w. Carr, Edward A. Carter, Samuel Q. Castle, Donald B. Clapp, Jordan L. Cohen, Lenore Crihfield, Scott A. Crosbie, Joe T. Davis, Richard C. Domek, Jr.*, Paul M. Eakin, Joseph L. Fink, III, Wilbur w. Frye*, Richard w. Furst, Misha Goetz, Lester Goldstein, Phillip A. Greasley, Robert D. Guthrie, Lynne A. Hall*, J. John Harris, III, Laurie R. Hatch, Christine Havice*, Brian Hoffman, Micki King Hogue, James G. Hougland, Jr.*, Don A. Howard*, Richard A. Jensen*, Angela Knopp, Kenneth K. Kubota, James M. Kuder, Thomas w. Lester, Linda Levstik, Thomas T. Lillich*, C. Oran Little, William C. Lubawy, Shawn Meauz, Richard S. Milich*, Karen A. Mingst, David A. Nash*, Derby Newman, Clayton P. Omvig, Thomas C. Robinson, Edgar L. Sagan*, Edward C. Scheiner*, Michael C. Shannon, Andrew Shveda, Timothy w. Sineath, Robert H. Spedding*, David H. Stockham, Brian Stover, Louis J. Swift, Michael G. Tearney*, Dennis M. TeKrony*, John S. Thompson*, Ann R. Tickamyer, Thomas Tucker, Eugene R. Williams, Emery A. Wilson, H. David Wilson*, and Peter Wong. The Chairperson announced that the Sullivan Awards Committee is requesting that nominees be sent in for this year's Sullivan Medallions which will be presented on Commencement Day. There are three categories; one undergraduate graduating woman, one undergraduate graduating man and one person who is not a student. In making nominations the committee requests the following criterion be kept in mind: nothing shall be considered except the possession of such characteristics of heart, mind, and conduct as exemplify the Spirit of love for and helpfulness to other men and women. The Chairperson went on to say that is the sole criterion, not academic excellence or anything else. The Chairperson pointed out that the Senators should soon have the December minutes. The February minutes are now in preparation and attached to the February minutes will be the full University Calendar for next year and the schematic calendar for l994—l995. The Chairperson stated that the reason for the March meeting was to provide an open Forum on budget issues. The Medical Sector and the Lexington Campus people have been looking at budget issues separately, and some people suggested that the meeting could provide a Forum to compare views from the two sectors to the extent that they have not already done so. The Chairperson stated that the second purpose was to explore ideas. He feels the budget problem might be dealt with in two phases. One is a short-term phase that would deal with the period between now and July of l993. The University system would put into place procedures and methods to deal with the budget *Absence explained. 7097 Minutes, University Senate, March 9, l992 short-fall in that period which, he hoped, would be temporary and not default into a regular long—term plan. The President has announced already that during the next year there would be a full—scale review of the University's Strategic Plan in placing organizations and structures to meet the essences of the University's mission. The Chairperson pointed out the priorities that the President has already announced. The three highest priorities are: (l) academic programs which include instruction, research, scholarship and public service; (2) protection of jobs and (3) protection of compensation. The Chairperson added that the University has struggled to get incomes and total compensation for faculty and staff to levels that are more ; commensurate than they have been for a decade with realistic expectations } for living in a professional community. The Chairperson shared a few numbers which he had gotten from the budget and other sources that might help. He did not want to pretend that he could account for the total University income or expenditures but wanted to give the Senate a flavor of the relative sizes of different components. He stated that none of the ten percent cut has been removed from the numbers. The original State appropriation was about $262 million; the component of tuition for the University system excluding community colleges runs to about $42 million. The fee structure is larger than Professor McEllistrem realized. He stated that when the fees are added then the University is getting about $ll.5 million in fees. When adding everything there is something over $310 million. There are other forms of income. He stated that the Lexington Campus spent $76 million for instruction; the Medical Sector $54 million; and Research and Graduate Studies which has several Centers has about $2.6 million in General Funds. The total instruction budget in the General Fund was $l92 million out of the $3l0 million that was available. The academic support services account for a fair amount of money which includes $l4.5 million in Central Administration; Student Services amount to $l9.5 million; the Lexington Campus had about $9.4 million; the Medical Sector about $8 million; and Research and Graduate Studies $2.7 million. His impression is that most of the money in Research and Graduate Studies is provided from external sources, not the General Fund. There is one other major component called public service which accounts for about $60 million of the total General Fund. The Chairperson added that the amount of money that needed to be cut for ten percent was $26.3 million for the University System. The Chairperson stated that Professor Phillip McKnight (German) had asked if he could address the Senate and present his impressions of budget matters. Professor McKnight was invited to speak to the Senate. Professor McKnight presented charts and a copy of his remarks follows: Thank you very much. I have collected some statistics to guide us in establishing budget priorities and as a statement about the mission of the University. I began thinking about what has often been referred to as administrative bloat when I received a yellow envelope soliciting u-~-;~'_:;.u::2r:nL\:1:\1'=~—‘1‘-‘-‘<finch-mmi-“VJ‘W‘ZVN-‘v=-~z::i.':'.’.a.;_~:_:'T“:"f‘"i’fr’TAI-J‘FIEIL‘ZT ’1," f3“? 7098 Minutes, University Senate, March 9, l992 membership in AAUP. The outside of the envelope was inscribed with the question, ”Did you know that administrative budgets grew 26% more than, instructional budgets in the eighties?" I wondered how true this was of UK. The question took on new meaning as we were instructed to cut back radically on our resources and as the College of Arts & Sciences began thinking about the need to restructure to cope with a different future. I thought about how budget cuts target faculty, TA's and PTI's. I wondered if it would hit the administration in kind, inasmuch as the public discussion had not carried over into this realm. I came up with the following from the l992-94 UK Strategic Plan: (Excluding Community Colleges) [See attached Appendix I] We'll leave the numbers for the Medical Center and the University Hospital out of the discussion for the time being, especially inasmuch as their needs for staff are likely different than the rest of the Lexington Campus, with the possible exception of the College of Agriculture, for which I have no separate numbers. Executive/Administrative/Managerial — 244 = a ratio of one administrator per 4.49 faculty. Round it off to 4.5. Ratio of Administrators to Faculty: l:4.5 A & S has lost 38 lines. (Note that 6 of these were a salary payback.) If we assume we really need one administrator per each 4.5 faculty, then the loss of 38 faculty means we now need 8.46-—round to 8.5-— less administrators. Total Savings (x 57,700) = $490,450.00 Approximately 32% of all faculty come from A & 3. Let's call it 40% for easy figuring. 40% of x = 38 and x = total number of Lexington Campus lines lost = 95. Round it down to 90 for easy figuring. If we are losing 90 lines then—-assuming we agree that we really need one administrator per 4.5 faculty, then this means we now need a total of 20 less administrators. Total Savings (x 57,700) = $l,l54,000.00 Benefits are not included. Line three of the above shows l,29l Other Professional. Let's assume that we could somehow get by with only one Professional for each faculty line, a savings of 194 positions at $3l,400 each. Total Savings (x 31,400) = $6,09l.600 Benefits are not included. 7099 Minutes, University Senate, March 9, 1992 Note: These figures are based on the origina1 number of 1097 facu1ty, not that number minus 90; i.e. we wou1d sti11 have 97 more Other Professiona1s than facu1ty if the professiona1s were reduced by 194. Reducing them by an additiona1 97 wou1d bring them down to a tota1 of 1007, as we have done to the facu1ty. Totai Additionai Savings: $3,145,800 Now 1et's take a 100k at some history regarding the growth of administrative costs. From Barbara Bergman, Professor of Economics at the American University: 1930: 19 cents were spent on administration for each $1 on instruction. 1950: 27 cents 1988: 45 cents The 1980's, as mentioned, demonstrated 26% greater growth in the administrative sector than in the instructiona1 sector. The 1985 figure for administrative costs required per each fu11-time student: $1,742.00. From Jay A. Ha1fond, Associate Dean of Business Administration at Northeastern University: Increases since 1975: Student enr011ment 10% Number of Fu11-Time facu1ty 21% Number of Administrative Positions 45% Increases in Sa1aries after inf1ation: Facu1ty: 21% Administration: 42% Nationwide: 1ess than 33% of peop1e emp1oyed by higher education are direct1y engaged in educating. The figure for UK, exc1uding the Medica1 Center and Hospita1: 20% From Kenneth E. Anderson, Professor of Speech & Communication at the University of I11inois Champagne/Urbana: Citing the Chronic1e of Higher Education March 28, 1990: Growth during 1975-1985: 5 ~- 4g1uxaL~:.:v‘~'Z~.-:f:1‘u»=> emuttgffini... ~.:wx;":i‘:.-_,' firmflhvitsi’..szs...,r.‘,.,,,.v 7100 Minutes, University Senate, March 9, 1992 Facu1ty: 6 % Administration 18% Other Professiona1s 61% Fo11ow-up for 1985—1990: Facu1ty 9% Administration 14% Professiona1s 28% Anderson and Ha1fond seem to have used either different sources or different statistica1 methods, but the figures speak for themse1ves whether you take the 1owest, the highest, or a mean. Particu1ar1y noteworthy are the factors showing both administrative numbers p1us administrative sa1ary increases mu1tip1ying two times as fast as those of facu1ty, which means that investment in administration is increasing at a rate four times greater than investment in facu1ty. Let's take a Took at Kentucky: (Source: Nationa1 Center for Education Statistics) [See attached Appendix III.] Evident1y, a11ocation for facu1ty and instruction 1ags way behind the nationaT average, whi1e per capita spent per Kentucky student is way above the nationa1 average. Where is that money being spent, which in other states is earmarked for facu1ty? If 26% is spent on Kentucky Facu1ty versus 39% nationwide, then an additiona1 13% or $725.56 per student is spent on ??? ” ‘““‘ V Let's take a 100k at some UK history: (Exc1uding Community CoT1eges) [See attached Appendix II.] These figures do not break down the Medica1 Center and Hospita1, they are a composite of the Lexington Campus p1us Medica1 Center and Hospita1. The on1y figures avai1ab1e which distinguish between them are those for 1990 quoted in Appendix 11. What has happened at UK between 1985 and 1990? Facu1ty has grown from 1507 to 1606 + 99 Administration: from 351 to 370 + 19 Professiona1: from 1946 to 2552 + 606 A major change took p1ace 1987-1988 when facu1ty were to1d that, a1though sa1aries were of highest priority, budget restraints prevented doing anything about it. However, we added 274 peop1e to the payro11 in the administration p1us professiona1 categories. Eighteen facu1ty 1ines were Tost, from 1520 to 1502. The current reduction of facu1ty takes us back to 1987 1eve1s of facu1ty and is not very far removed from 1985 1eve1s. 7101 Minutes, University Senate, March 9, l992 If we take administrative positions, correspondingly, back to l985 levels, this would roughly reflect the figure I gave you above: Savings: $l.l54 million Let's just take the administration positions back to l987, or a savings of 5 positions = $288,500. (Of course, we could simply insist on our l:4.5 ratio and drop 20 administrative positions for the $l.154 million savings.) Now what would happen, since we have 90 less faculty, by which we have already saved (at $46,300 each) $4.l67 million, if we take professionals back to 2987 only: A savings of a staggering 509 positions at 31,400 = Total Savings of: $l5,982.600. If we did this we would still have more than l professional per faculty. None of this includes benefits. I just want to make a few points: If the central mission of the university is teaching and research, then we are in trouble. Through reallocation of funds to administration, made glaring by the loss of 90 faculty, we are making a de facto change of the university mission from teaching and research to bureaucratic endeavors and accountability activities. 2. The increase in teaching loads results in a cutback in leading edge research: this research doesn't reach students at UK in their disciplines and, consequently, UK graduates are at a disadvantage on the job market. We cannot be reduced to using last decade's textsbooks. 3. How much of your time has been saved by the increase in administrative posts? Do you have more (or substantially less) time to devote on teaching and research since the changes made in professional positions since l987? 4. My college, Arts and Sciences, carries a heavy instructional load for the entire university system. The good news is that Bob Hemenway has restored funding of TA lines to within $200,000 of this year's level. (of a total of $4.57m). The bad news is that PTI funds are $520,000 short of this year‘s funding. u-~—'r-4~¢1—‘~‘.L‘§;fl':r~i=n:- v t «aw.- . Tu_,,~_N...=&mmx-a.~_M.u ~.—.c.-x.~::7:r_§:;~:=<§--»§M-m‘uzw‘:rr:.1.‘;2:~"i;if“: "‘ 7103 Minutes, University Senate, March 9, 1992 cent of its average 50-hour work week by spending 15 hours or more on non—instructiona1 tasks assigned by administrators and professionals. A second 100k at the UK figures for administrators suggests that during the changes for 1987-1989, when the figure went from 365 to 393 and then back to 367, that different criteria for c1assification were used rather than sudden hiring and 1ayoffs. The current reduction in facu1ty size now puts UK's ratio at 1:4. Surprising1y, according to EEOC figures quoted by Anderson, this matches the nationa1 ratio of administrators per facu1ty——at 1east for the year 1985. (Review: numbers of administrators since that time has increased by an additiona1 14%, facu1ty by 9%.) However, Anderson's figures show that in the category of Other Professiona1s, which grew by 61.1%, that the nationa1 ratio of professiona1s to facu1ty was .57 per facu1ty. The ratio at UK, on the other hand, not counting the Toss of 90 facu1ty Tines, is 1.6 professiona1$ per facu1ty for the university system, echuding Community Co11eges, and 1.2 per facu1ty for the Lexington Campus exc1uding the Medica1 Center and the Hospita1. If you count the 1055 of 90 facu1ty those ratios become 1.8:1 and 1.3:1, respective1y. Ha1fond cites a recent survey by the Association of American Universities showing that 75% of its member institutions are attempting to reduce administrative costs. I wou1d suggest that peop1e interested in this, particu1ar1y from the facu1ty, take a 100k serious1y at the administrative costs to see if we cannot a1so have input into the kinds of decisions that are going to be made which affect the entire University. I wou1d be gTad to be a part of that. Thank you very much. The Chairperson stated that Professor McKnight's comments i11ustrate that it is difficu1t to understand the different components of the budget and it causes questions to be asked. his The Chairperson recognized President Wethington for any comments about perspective on where the University is going from here and when. President Char1es Wethington responded as fo11ows: To the professor from German, 1et me say that I probab1y agree with you far more than you rea1ize in terms of the genera1 nature of the presentation that you just made. I may not agree with the figures themse1ves as those are a1ways subject to some interpreta- tion, but I think you fairTy adequate1y described the growth that has taken p1ace in higher education, not just in this institution but in others in the decade of the 80's. I wi11 neither take credit or b1ame for that, but I can te11 you that you are reasonab1y on target with your conc1usions. 7102 Minutes, University Senate, March 9, 1992 That's a tota1 of just over $700,000. (Review: The 38 1ines 1ost in A&S amount to $1.76m and the 90 1ines for the university amount to $4.167. The PTI's who, in fact wi11 be 1aid off, p1us the TA's, whose 1ines and, hence, positions in graduate schoo1 are reduced, are the 1owest paid personne1, earning between $8,000 and $10,000. Let's use the 1atter figure. This means 70 peop1e impacting instruction in A&S a1one are gone. They teach an average of three courses per year, or a tota1 of 210 courses of Tower division, most1y required courses. This means that 105 courses next fa11 are not covered. If we have 38 1ess facu1ty 1ines, assuming they each teach four courses per year, then we 1ose 76 courses at the upper division and graduate 1eve1 each semester. That’s a tota1 of 181 courses each semester. The $700,000 to save the 1ower division instructiona1 program seems 1ike a sma11 figure. It is an extreme1y cost effective method of covering 210 courses per year. If we do want to keep our ratio of 1: 4.5 and of 1.5 professionaT_per facu1ty, then we cou1d save around $16 mi11ion. Restoring the 1ines and the instructiona1 budget 1eaves $11 mi1Tion to p1ay with. The facu1ty needs to participate in defining the mission of the university and in ensuring that the missions of teaching and research remain centra1 to the operation of the university. The artic1es written by the peop1e whose figures I have quoted above a11 point to the fact that, once begun, each administrative or professiona1 position takes on a 1ife of its own, seeking to expand its own staff and scope of inf1uence, very often in non-academic functions. The professiona1 and administrative positions need to be examined just as we are examining positions in European History, Mo1ecu1ar Bio1ogy, or Computer Science to determine which of these might be deemed expendab1e. Perhaps some of those professiona1 and administrative positions are 1ess centra1 to the mission of the university than the kinds of facu1ty 1ines mentioned above. We are being asked to increase c1ass size and thus reduce the qua1ity of the educationa1 experience be1ow minimum professiona1 standards. We are being given 1ess time for research and hence we are being tacit1y asked to reduce the qua1ity of 1eading edge research in the educationa1 experience of our students, 1owering professiona1 standards. What percentage of increases for higher education over the 1ast decade has gone into the qua1ity of instruction and research and what percentage has gone into the qua1ity of administrative activities? The figures above show that the administrative growth percentage is four times greater than the instructiona1 percentage. At the same time, the surveys above show that facu1ty has 1ost a significant per- 3-». 44‘quite:z:nur;v¥rfi‘¥:tf”i‘?¢hw§a’mmffg'j—7AN “nun-7:3; 7104 Minutes, University Senate, March 9, l992 I want to give you a bit of perspective about the budget cuts themselves and clarify for you at least the process in procedures that we are undergoing at present. As you know, we experienced a five percent budget cut earlier this year; we have managed that. We have reported to the Board; the Board has approved our plan for handling that budget cut. During that time and up to the present, I have continued my strong direction to the Chancellors and vice presidents that we protect, wherever possible, the academic programs of this institution; that we keep our commitments to students; that we keep our contractual obligations; and that we keep our commitments to people in every way that we can. As a result of that, the budget cuts have probably fallen disproportionately where there were vacancies in the institution. I hope you understand the significance of that. Even though I might agree with you about your conclusions, I also have a deep feeling for people and to the extent possible have tried in these budget cuts thus far to protect people and their jobs. These faculty positions and staff positions that you are talking about are vacancies, not layoffs. I still have a strong feeling that whether they are administrators, faculty, or staff in this institution I want to protect people as long as I_can, because it says something about the institution when we jump in and lay off people without a great deal of planning. The ongoing process is getting done exactly what I hoped it would get done and that it is generating across the entire University an understanding of what the difficulty is and the serious nature of this second budget cut. We could have handled this budget cut without the kind of debate, the kind of discussion in the sectors that we have been having for the last few weeks, but, in my opinion, we would have come out of that budget cut without a good understand- .ing in the University community about how serious this second cut is. It is five percent on top of five percent, a total of a ten percent cut. Marc, the only difference I would make in the total budget cut figures you gave is that the $26.3 million included $3.2 million for the Community College System during the first five percent cut. The total for the University System - Lexington Campus and Medical Center is about $23.l million. We have sustained that first cut and have a plan in place; now we are moving to handle the second cut. Obviously, to do that whether by the process you have heard described for you here that looked primarily at administrative positions or whether it were done in some other way, it could not be done quickly without laying off a bunch of people. It could not be done quickly if we were going to make some major structural changes in this University, I did not believe. This year, l992, is the year when I have been committed to reviewing our Strategic Plan all across this University to determine what it is that we think is most critical and most important and that we believe is worthy of a priority for our resources. That review was planned for 1992 anyway. 7105 Minutes, University Senate, March 9, l992 My instructions to the Chancellors and vice presidents a few weeks back were to take a five percent budget cut figure and go out into the sectors (and that is why Bob Hemenway has been having forums for the Lexington Campus; that is why Peter Bosomworth has been having hearings in the Medical Center; that is why Gene Williams has been having discussions in Information Systems; that is why Lee Magid has been holding hearings in Research and Graduate Studies; and Ben Carr in the Community College System.) These are the individuals that have been charged by me with primary responsibility for caucusing with you; seeking ideas from you about the best ways to manage the budget cut. Decisions have not been made. Any discussions you have had or are having today have been held with the idea of generating ideas, suggestions, and advice that will come on up through the vice presidents and chancellors to me and that will help me in making final decisions about the budget cut. I will accept the responsi~ bility for determining what those cuts are across the University and in each sector. What has been done thus far, for purposes of this second cut, is not final. I want you to understand that. My goal now, and has been all along during this month of March, is to continue the kind of discussions that are ongoing here today, between roughly the first of March and the first of April. We won't know what our final appropriation is for 1992-93 until the General Assembly finishes at approximately the end of March. We will not make final decisions, of course, until we know exactly what the dollar figure is going to be for 1992-93. Hopefully, it can be slightly improved. Obviously, there is always the risk that it could be worsened, but I do not believe that is likely to be the case. I don't think we are going to see major changes since we are in a position now that if major benefit is given to higher education it is going to come at the expense of human services, especially medicaid and/or elementary and secondary education. I think that you will find that public policy is somewhat unwilling to make a decision in favor of higher education when other parts of state government are considered to be in some crisis. Higher education with all our problems, in my opinion, is not considered to be in a crisis situation. We are competing for the State's resources. We will know by approximately the first of April what those resources for the University of Kentucky are going to be. During the month of April then, I do plan to meet with each vice president and chancellor, having heard then from deans, community college presidents, faculty, and staff all over this University. I will hear from them specific proposals about ways they believe this budget cut can best be managed. I then will make the final decisions that I will propose to the Board of Trustees, probably in June. But by the end of this semester, prior to the time that you may be away from campus for some period of time, we will have made decisions, at least that is my intent, for l992—93. We will submit our budget to the Board of :- ,.._~ “443:”: ma.use-rr511mf’TS-‘LW-v-sx-mltzitrfm33. u “mam: 7106 Minutes, University Senate, March 9, l992 Trustees, probably at the June meeting. No final decisions have been made; the process is going on; ideas are being generated; and we are going to be looking at the best ways we can manage these budget cuts given those priorities that Marc outlined for you that are essen- tially my priorities. Now let's get back to your question about administrators and your question about overhead, and your question about the importance of the academic research, service, and instruction missions. I believe that we have to have some to address these issues in some great detail -- that we must look carefully at our administrative structure. And I propose to look at our administrative structure first, not last. The fact that you are not hearing a lot said about the administrative structure now is that the instructions that are going out from Bob Hemenway and others are asking how you would manage X level of cut in your sector, not how would you manage it in some other sector. We are generating ideas designed to elicit just what kind of problems would be caused by the budget cuts. I propose that we look at our administrative structure first during 1992-93, not last, but I can tell you that if we did away with our entire central administration, so that we had no payroll function, no purchasing function, no president's office function, no budgeting function, etc., we could not have absorbed this entire budget cut. Please know that administrative structure change is not any total answer and the change we make will be a partial answer. But I don't have any quarrel at all with your looking first at administration, and I intend to do exactly that. But know too, we will look in l992 at ways to restructure the University that will allow us to be more effective and productive and .put dollars better into those priorities that we think are essential. With an institution that is as people-intensive as all institutions of higher education are, and with an institution like this one with roughly 70 percent of its budget in people, major changes don't get made without impacting numbers of people. I simply want to tell you that if we were to agree that the work force in this University, whether that be administrators, faculty, staff, would be three, four or five hundred lower at some point in the future, my strong feeling still is to give those individuals every opportunity to try to seek employment within this institution or employment elsewhere prior to the time that we get into layoffs of people. I am just as concerned, I'll say again, about people, whether they are administrators or whether they are custodians or whether they are faculty in this institution. Know that our plans will take some time to implement even if we are all in agreement on what our plans are for the long term. It is an opportunity to look at this University and to look at the growth that has occurred over the last few years, and I will agree with what I think you were saying, and that is that I think our faculty complement, as judged by other institutions like ours, is roughly where it ought to be. You and I might agree or disagree whether we 7107 Minutes, University Senate, March 9, l992 have too many people here in this unit, not enough people in that unit, whatever. Look at the University system-wide, and you will find, I think, that our faculty complement is roughly in line with that of other benchmark institutions. That may say that our faculty numbers are about right. It certainly is a worthy place to begin. And certainly there has been, in the decade of the 80's when enrollment has not grown that much in the University System, obviously a considerably larger growth, percentage wise or otherwise, in positions that are nonfaculty than in positions that are faculty. We did have an all-time record enrollment last fall. That simply indicates more of a need for instruction than less and simply exacerbates the faculty complement problem just a bit. Give us some time and let us not rush into decisions that will cause us to jump to the conclusion that people ought to be laid off and cause problems between and among various employee groups in the University if we can manage the cut in another way and if we can take a little time and handle the administration of this cut on a recurring basis in a humane and what I hope to be a very good way. It is an opportunity to look at ways to restructure the University and help us be more productive and help us assure that our resources are being used most wisely and help us chart some direction for the 90's and on into the year 2000. All of you know that the second year of this biennium budget as proposed today is not that great. We are looking at a three percent increase in our budget in the second year of the biennium. Marc alluded a few minutes ago to the fact that we might very well take part of this budget cut on a nonrecurring basis and handle the rest of it on a recurring basis beginning July 1, l993. I tend to lean in that direction. That will soften the blow a bit; it will give us