xt7c599z3c4f https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7c599z3c4f/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1984-02-13  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, February 13, 1984 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 13, 1984 1984 1984-02-13 2020 true xt7c599z3c4f section xt7c599z3c4f MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY l3, 1984

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, February l3,
l984, in Room lO6 of the Classroom Building.

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

Members absent: Ann Amerson*, Richard Angelo*, Charles E. Barnhart, Trudi
Bellardo*, Thomas 0. Blues*, James A. Boling, David Bradford*, Joseph T. Burch, Ellen
Burnett*, I. K. Chew, Karen Cobb, Glenn B. Collins*, Donald F. Diedrich*, Marcus Dillon,
Richard C. Domek*, Herbert Drennon, Nancy E. Dye, Anthony Eardley, William Ecton,
Donald G. Ely*, Jackie Embry, Joseph L. Fink, Richard Forgue*, Charles P. Graves,
Andrew J. Grimes, John Hall, Joseph Hamburg, Marilyn D. Hamann*, S. Z. Hasan*, Robert
Hemenway*, Raymond R. Hornback, John J. Just*, Theodore A. Kotchen*, Gurcharan Laumas,
Robert Lawson, D. C. Leigh, Thomas Lillich*, Edgar Maddox, Kenneth E. Marino*, Sally
S. Mattingly*, Mike McCauley, Marion McKenna*, Ernest Middleton, Harold Nally, Robert
C. Nobel*, Elbert W. Ockerman*, Mary Anne Owens*, Merrill Packer*, Bobby C. Pass*,
Janet Pisaneschi*, Robert Rabel, Madhira D. Ram*, Kay Robinson*, Charles Sachatello*,
Edgar Sagan, Otis A. Singletary*, John T. Smith, Marcia Stanhope*, Marc J. Wallace,
David Webster*, Charles Wethington, Alfred D. Winer, Steven Yates*, Scott Yocum,
Robert G. Zumwinkle .

The Minutes of the Meeting of December 5, l983, were approved as circulated.
The Chairman made the following announcements:

“The first announcement I would like to make is that
on March 8 in the evening Professor Thomas Chapman of the
Mathematics Department will present his Arts and Sciences
Distinguished Professor Lecture in the Fine Arts Building.

Second, about a year ago we were adopting rules con—
cerning selective admissions to the University. I thought
it might be helpful to have a status report on what is
happening now a year later. While in the midst of that
procedure, I have asked Professor Altenkirch, Chairman of
the Admissions and Standards Committee and a member of the
Senate Council, to give us a brief review of what is happen-

Professor Altenkirch presented charts and gave a review of what the admissions
criteria are and the calendar of events. Professor Altenkirch made the following

”Basically we have three categories of students--those
who are automatically acceptable or automatically rejected and
those we think about for awhile in the rank—order pool. We rank
those according to a formula that takes into account diversity,
personal achievement and academic performance. In the academic
performance we begin with high school grade average and ACT.


 The calendar of events is that we began notifying people
last October they were acceptable for Fall l984. The l5th of
February is the deadline for someone who applied and is not
automatically acceptable but still intends to come if they are
accepted from the rank—order pool. As of February l5 a student
is either in the pool or not in the pool. Then the Admissions
Office begins to rank the pool using the formula the Senate
agreed upon last year. By March l5 an applicant who was auto-
matically accepted on or before February l5 needs to tell the
University whether or not he/she intends to enroll. The Ad-
missions Office then starts to notify people accepted from the
pool. On April 15 the confirmations are due to the Admissions
Office from those accepted on March 15. The first of May we
start to notify people that have been rank-ordered in the pool
and have been rejected. Then we anticipate questions. People
will want to know how they can get in when they have been re-
jected. There is a committee that will admit people by excep—
tions. That committee will be appointed by Chancellor Gallaher.
There are no general guidelines.

For the Fall of l984 we have had a total of 5,886 appli—
cants compared to 5,387 in the Fall of l983 at the same time.
We have had a nine percent increase in the number of applica—
tions. Of these totals 3,593 are acceptable according to the
automatic acceptance criteria. There are a little over a thou-
sand people in the pool. We rejected 3lO people in the Fall of
l983 and this year only 326. A lot of those rejected for Fall
l983 were outmof-state students. As of the lOth of February
we have had T964 say they were coming to UK. They did not have
to send in any money. At the same time last year we had a little
over ZlOO. Fifty—five percent of the acceptable people have been

If the admissions policy had applied in l98l, l7.8 percent
of the class would have been cut out. In T982 about l4 percent,
so we anticipate about a 15 percent reduction in the class for
the Fall of l984 over what it would have been without selective
admissions. The admissions policy was designed to give us enough
students but make them better than the ones in the past.

There is one last way to circumvent selective admissions and
that is to enroll in summer school because selective admissions
applies for the Fall and Summer will be open.”

Professor Altenkirch presented the following charts.


Fa11 1984


1981 3268 2685
1982 3066 2637


[i%%%%53 Pending) + Confirm /O.8

Show Rate C1ass %AT982

100% 3014
80% 2411

FaTT 1984
February 10, 1984


Accept 3593 4253
Pending 733 726
P001 1112

Reject 326 310
Withdraw 122 98
TotaT‘ 5886 5387

Confirm 1964 2101

% accept to
confirm 55 49 + 6

The Chairman thanked Professor A1tenkirch for his report.

Chairman Rees said that at the September meeting of the senate a resoTution and
recommendation with regard to increasing the funding of the 1ibrary system and their
urgent needs was adopted. Attached to these minutes are itemizations of what is being
done. The Chairman further stated that the Senate Counci1 had met with President
Sing1etary and asked for a joint facu1ty—administration committee be set up to study
what is being ca11ed facu1ty a1ternatives. That committee has been appointed. The
President appointed Mike Baer, Dean of Arts and Sciences; Joe Burch, Dean of Students;
Joan McCauTey, Business and Financia1 Affairs; and Bruce Mi11er, Personne1. The other
members are: A. J. Hiatt, Agricu1ture; David Lowery, Po1itica1 Science; and M. N.
Winer, Anatomy. Chairman Rees asked Professor PivaT to give a report on the status of
the committee.

Professor PivaT's remarks foiTow:
”We met once and decided we c0u1d work best by dividing

into two subcommittees: one to research ear1y retirement
p1ans and the other to 100k at a1ternatives such as reassign—



ment of faculty. I would like to ask the senators if you have
any knowledge of any institutions that have already imple—
mented such plans, to inform us. The committee would be very
pleased to get those names so that we can contact the people.
We are supposed to have a report in by the end of April, so

we would appreciate any input.”

The Chairman thanked Professor Pival.

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Joseph Gani, Chairman of the Department of
Statistics for a report. Professor Gani's report follows:

Dr. Gani reviewed the history of the efforts of the Department of Statistics to
provide a statistics consultation service. In l976, Dr. R. L. Anderson, then chair-
man of the Department, proposed the formation of a Statistical Laboratory to meet
the needs of graduate students and faculty. At that time there was a Biostatistics
Laboratory in the Medical Center; so a Statistical Laboratory with a part—time Direc~
tor, two part-time faculty members and three graduate students seemed adequate--but
the Laboratory was not created. In l98l-82 Dr. Gani, as a new chairman, confronted
the same need and approached a solution in the broader context of an emerging School
of Mathematical Sciences by establishing a Mathematical Sciences Consulting Labora—
tory (MSCL) which would provide assistance in mathematical modeling as well as
statistical analysis and design.

Toward developing a plan Dr. Gani visited The Statistical Center at the Univer:
sity of Minnesota as well as the Statistical Laboratories at the University of
Wisconsin, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Iowa State University. He described
three funding models for such laboratories: l) full support by the University as a
service to faculty and students, 2) partial support from the University (e.g., sup—
port of a Director and Assistant Director) with additional monies for necessary staff
coming from grants and contracts in which faculty investigators specified funding
monies for statistical consultations. (At some institutions funding comes also from
industrial consultations.) 3) A few institutions attempt to support the Laboratory
by a fee for service system. Payment here comes from faculty with funds or by the
University allocating ”statistical dollars” (analogous to the allocation of "computing
dollars“) to departments and colleges.

In l98l—82 an MSCL was established with adequate support only from the Tobacco
and Health Research Institute and lesser support from the College of Medicine ($l5,000),
College of Nursing, College of Agriculture, the Graduate School, and the College of
Arts and Sciences. Though funding was low, the consultation demand was great, and so
in l982 the MSCL was formally constituted with Dr. Kryscio as Director. During l983-84,
Dr. Kryscio, Dr. Theo and Dr. Liu are the staff. Reimbursement remains low and so the
main source of funding for the MSCL is from the Department of Statistics which is not
only continuing its usual teaching load but is also providing a full-fledged consulting
service with two fewer faculty than in l98l. In l982—82 there were thirtyothree (33)
graduate student research projects (l32 consulting sessions), thirtyvnine (39) medical
center projects (78 consulting sessions) and twenty-three (23) other faculty pro-
jects (45 consulting sessions) with each consulting session lasting l-3 hours. This
represented an equivalent of one (l) full—time faculty which was provided from dimin-
ished resources.

Dr. Gani felt that the University must decide very soon whether it wishes to
support a properly constituted MSCL or not. Quality advice cannot come without



adequate financial support; he recommended that UK:

a) allocate funds for a full-time Director and two (2)
graduate students — $50,000.

b) provide a ”consulting dollars” fund (comparable to
”computing dollars”) to all Departments using
MCSL - $50,000.

c) encourage the Medical Center to provide funds for
a full—time biostatistics consultant for the
Medical Center — $32,000.

Dr. Gani introduced Dr. Richard Kryscio, Director of the Consulting Services
for Statistics. Professor Kryscio addressed the day-to-day activities in the labora—
tory as follows:

”There are three main areas of activities in MSCL:
a) Medical Center contract, b) graduate student and faculty
research consulting, c) cooperative projects with other cam—
pus units.

The Dean of the College of Medicine allocated to the
MSCL a blank grant of $l5,000 each of the past three (3) years.
The MSCL in turn bills the users with the collected fees then
paid back to the Dean. Approximately 50 percent of Medical
Center work concerns statistical analysis of data sets which
form the nucleus of abstracts for papers to be presented at
national meetings. The data usually get into our hands with-
out warning one week before a deadline; there is tremendous
pressure to turn out a quality report in very limited time.
The other 50 percent of Medical Center projects provide a
more satisfying ongoing dialogue between the researcher and
the MSCL. (Specific examples were cited concerning projects
with Radiation Medicine and Anatomy.) The Medical Center
takes about 65 percent of my consulting time; but Professors
Harlley McKean and Constance Wood also contribute to consulta—
tion there.

The second main area is consulting on graduate student
dissertations and faculty research. This effort is almost
exclusively handled by myself and takes 25 percent of consult—
ing time--sixty (60) consultations this past year for about
twenty (20) graduate students and ten (l0) faculty members.
Clients come from many different colleges and departments.
This is an area where the MSCL should devote greater effort,
since it is clear that our consulting provides a genuine ser-
vice to the academic community. Through it, we can improve
the quality of research on the campus. For example, graduate
students doing research dissertations often need help with:

l. Constructing data base from data already collected
and, sometimes, they need help with how best to
collect data.



appropriate statistical procedures for testing
their hypotheses and in some cases help in formu—
lating testable hypotheses.

insight into further analyses that can be applied
to the data.

4. help in obtaining answers from the computer.

(Examples were cited from Music, Agriculture, Arts and
Sciences, and Engineering.)

More consulting could be done but there is a problem of
manpower. We have received very little support from the
University administration. This semester the graduate school
funded an assistantship for one graduate student to work in
the MSCL. (He helps with simpler tasks in the MSCL in ex—
change for my consulting time with graduate students.) To run
the MSCL properly four (4) graduate T.A.s are needed.

(Work with the Tobacco and Health Research Institute,
Kentucky Geological Survey, and Survey Research Center were
also cited.)

Finally, you may have seen some slide presentations by
Dean Royster of the Graduate School in which the quality of
various UK doctoral programs were compared with similar pro—
grams at midwestern and other benchmark institutions. This
was an MSCL project involving Dean Baer, Professor Gani, Dean
Royster and myself with the assistance of the cartography
laboratory in the Geography Department. We were delighted to
help the administration; we hope that they will show equal
willingness in helping us to improve the quality of quanti~
tative research on this campus.“

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor McEllistrem wanted
to know if there would be funded positions in the department for the Special Title
Series. Professor Gani answered with a brief no. Professor Bostrom remarked it was
extremely difficult for students and faculty to use the computer. He wanted to know
if now the same thing would be true for the statistical consultant. He got that imm
pression from the way computer funds were allocated. Professor Gani said his sugges—
tion was not to follow the mistakes of the past but to make a break for the future.

Professor Altenkirch wanted to know if Professor Kryscio felt he got the proper
recognition. He thought some of the things Professor Kryscio did took up fifty to
sixty percent of his overall effort and was worried about the substantial amount of
work he did for the students. Professor Kryscio's answer was that he did get proper
recognition and was listed as joint author on several publications.

The Chairman said that because of the reports the senate could see the University
through different eyes and thanked Professors Gani and Kryscio for their reports.

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom for the first action item. On
behalf of the Senate Council, Professor Bostrom recommended approval of the proposed
change in University Senate Rules, Section 1., 4.l.8 concerning the Subcommittee on



Analysis of Resource Allocations. Professor Bostrom said this change was simply a
change in the Senate Rules asking that the subcommittee be made into a full committee.
Professor Haywood is the Chairman of that committee. This proposed change was cir—
culated to members of the senate under date of February 2, l984.

There was no discussion or questions and the proposed change in the University
Senate Rules Section I., 4.l.8 passed unanimously and reads as follows:


That the provisions of Senate Rule I, 4.l.8 concerning the
Subcommittee on Analysis of Resource Allocation be repealed,
and that the Senate adopt a new Rule I, 4.l.9 establishing

a standing committee as follows:

I., 4.l.9 Committee on Institutional Finances and Resources


The primary function and mission of the Committee on
Institutional Finances and Resources Allocation is to
inform the Senate Council and the Senate on the present
status of the prospective changes in the finances and
other resources available to the University. The
Committee shall analyze public budget documents, pub-
lished reports about financial and other trends and
shall consult appropriate officials in fulfilling this
function. It shall also examine budgetary data con-
cerning the allocation of available financial resources
resulting from budget reductions. However, the
Committee's concerns here shall not be foCused on de-
partmental, college or other particular interests, but
on general concerns and procedures taken from the
perspective of the entire University. The Committee
shall issue a report annually, and shall make specific
reports to the Senate Council at the latter's request.

Membership on the Committee on Institutional Finances
and Resources Allocation shall include senior faculty
with financial and budgetary expertise relevant to
university finances. Neither the Chairman nor a
majority of the Committee's members have to be mem—
bers of the University Senate.

Implementation Date: Immediately

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Malcolm Jewell for the presentation of the
honorary degree candidates as recommended by the Graduate School. Professor Jewell
asked that the four names be kept confidential because the awarding came from the
Board of Trustees. Following Professor Jewell's presentation, the senators voted
unanimously to accept the candidates for recommendation to the President.

The Chairman again recognized Professor Bostrom to present the proposal to change
the name of the James w. Martin Graduate Center for Public Administration to the
James N. Martin School of Public Administration. Professor Bostrom, on behalf of the
Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposal. This proposal was circulated
to members of the senate under date of February 3, l984.



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


To change the name of the James N. Martin Graduate Center for
Public Administration to the James N. Martin School of Public
Administration. The various subunits within the School shall

be called'flfivisiony'and not'TentersJ' [See Attached Organi—
zational Structure]


This proposed renaming originated in the Graduate School, was
recommended by the Graduate Dean and approved by the Graduate
Faculty, reviewed and approved by the Senate Committee on
Academic Organization and Structure and approved by the Senate
Council. The Committee on Academic Organization and Structure
recommended and the Senate Council concurred that subunits
within the School should be designated “Divisions“ rather than
“Centers“ in order to avoid confusion and inconsistencies with
current University guidelines for "Centers."

The Chairman had put on the agenda a period for open discussion in an effort to
afford the opportunity for senators and nonmembers of the senate to bring something
before the senate as a forum for discussion. The chairman recognized Professor
Joseph Engelberg for a report.

Professor Engelberg*s remarks follow:

“I am a member of John Stephenson's Committee on General
Studies and appreciate this opportunity to put a few ideas
before you having to do with general education at the Univer—
sity of Kentucky.

The first point I would like to draw to your attention
has to do with the magnitude of resources available to general
education at the University of Kentucky. I have made a very
rough, top—of—the-head estimate which I hope you will not
hold me to, but I estimate that on the order of thirty million
dollars per year of our total bud et is in effect assignable
to our general studies program. ?The correct figure may be
ten million dollars, but it may also be sixty million dollars.)
If we divide this sum by the number of undergraduate students,
we find that the Commonwealth invests some $3,000 per year per
undergraduate student in general education. Interestingly
enough, a program of this magnitude has no individual responsia
ble or accountable for its quality or direction,

Degree programs of very small size at this Institution
which might graduate ten students per year may have a Chairman,
a Director of Undergraduate Studies, and a faculty dedicated
to the excellence of the program. Knowing these programs we
know the meticulous care which goes into each of them. We need
the same kind of thought, care and effort in the General Studies



What about the substance of our General Studies program?
What is presently transmitted to the students? I do not know
how you feel about general education, but I believe it to be
the transmission from one generation to the next of the tradi-
tions, wisdom, and insights of a civilization. All kinds of
precious things that have accumulated over thousands of years.
People suffered and died to bring these into existence. They
are a treasure possessed by a community. If the treasure is
not passed on, it will be irretrievably lost.

What is passed on by our General Studies program to the
next generation? Consider one example of what is not passed
on. Probably less than five percent of students who graduate
from the University of Kentucky have systematically studied
Greece and Rome. This again is a crude estimate: of the stu-
dents taking history, eighty percent take American History to
satisfy the General Studies requirement; the other twenty per—
cent take a one-year European History course, a course which
devotes two weeks to the history of Greece and Rome. Thus,
only a handful of students (e.g. the Honors students) at the
University of Kentucky obtain a grounding in the roots of our

It is sobering to reflect that if the Founding Fathers of
this country had been educated at the University of Kentucky or
other universities of our time, they would not have been capable
of a brilliant invention: the American political system. It is
well documented how this invention arose out of their understand-
ing of history, philosophy and classical thought.

One last observation. The problems associated with our
General Studies program are only in a minor way of a techni-
cal nature: budgets, faculty participation, class sizes, etc.
We have a large, highly-educated faculty. We have the students,
the books, the buildings. The problem is a spiritual one. It
revolves around values. We can only transmit to the next gen-
eration what we really believe in. I would like to see this
faculty commit itself one way or another on this issue of the
roots of American civilization. Do we believe that these roots
have such value that it is imperative that they be transmitted?
Or do we believe that they can be forgotten without significant
loss to future generations? The answer to these questions will
determine the character of General Studies at the University of

”You have to begin to lose your memory, if only in bits
and pieces, to realize that memory is what makes our
lives. Life without memory is no life at all....0ur
memory is our coherence, our reason, our feeling, even
our action. Without it, we are nothing.”

Author ,
Luis Bunuel

Chairman Rees said that Professor Engelberg had presented a point of view which

some may agree or disagree, and he asked for comments regardless of which side was



Professor Wilson wanted to know if Professor Engelberg was proposing that all
students who come to the University would be steeped in Greek and Latin or that it
would be accessible to students if they were interested. Professor Engelberg was pro—
posing that all students who graduate take a one year course which traced the
origin of American institutions and values all the way to their sources. Professor
Applegate agreed there should be some revamping in the general education system and
wanted students to learn to think as opposed to memorizing. He believed that in the
general education requirements there should be a broad exposure to alternative sys-
tems of values in thinking and teaching students how to think.

Professor Engelberg said this was not his invention or idea. It was education
that had been practiced for thousands of years. He felt techniques and content should
be disassociated. He added that studying a classical curriculum was by no means
abrogating the teaching of thought to students.

Student senator Taylor said it was hard enough to get a bachelors degree in four
years and with adding another requirement it might take five or more years to finish.
Professor Engelberg said he was not speaking about adding anything. He was talking
about taking the number of credits required in the general studies program and how to
allocate them. Professor Ivey did not want to quibble about subject matter, but he
said he did want to quibble about cost analysis because a great many of the courses
that are taken out of.the general studies component are actually a part of the major and
premajor requirements. Professor Engelberg felt that would reduce the thirty million
to ten million but said the issue was not the amount of dollars, but there were dol-
lars riding on a program in which there was no quality control and no accountability.

Professor Perreiah was sympathetic with Professor Engelberg's efforts to inform
the faculty, but it seemed to him that a couple of points were misleading. ”It is
true that there is no one person in charge 0f general studies but certainly every
chairperson and every department is keenly interested in offering good quality edu-
cation courses,” he said. ProfesSor Perreiah wanted to know what Professor Engelberg
expected to achieve with the proposal for a year long course. Professor Engelberg's
answer was that students get scraps and pieces in different areas.

Professor Rea said that students and faculty had come to regard the general
education requirements as obstacles, as difficulties to be gotten through on their
way to a degree rather than something valuable to be obtained as they progressed
toward their education. He felt that as long as students regarded them as obstacles,
the University had failed.

Professor Stephenson was discouraged to hear the University referred to as a place
to be gotten out of, especially after hearing about the selective admissions program.
"It is suppose to be a place people want to get into rather than out of,” he said.
Professor Stephenson felt the senate should be grateful to Professor Engelberg for
being the ”lightning rod” for a subject that has many differences of opinion. He
mentioned that on February l4, l5 and l6 there were going to be three forums on the
subject of the general studies program for those who wanted to continue the discussion.

Professor Cole felt it was impossible to put everything into one course and there
should be a whole variety of courses. He thought the people who should be involved
in the dialogue were faculty and students. Professor Engelberg said that Stanford
University reinstituted a course that had been swept away from their campus in the
60's. The professors teaching the course are drawn from a variety of departments:
art history, philosophy, architecture, English, etc. The readings of the common


 course are eighty percent the same. Twenty percent are left up to the particular
professor teaching the course.

The Chairman felt that interest had been demonstrated in the discussion and asked
for a vote to see if the senate was reasonably satisfied with the University's pre-
sent general studies program. The Chairman asked the question if most people felt
there were prospects for doing a better job. The senate felt that was not a fair
question. No vote was taken.

The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

Martha M. Ferguson
Recording Secretary

Note: Attached find the revised 1984—85 University Calendars and the proposed
1986—87 University Calendars for your information and records.


 Proposed Organizational Structure of The Martin School:


The University of Kentucky
The Graduate School

The Martin School of Public Administration


F 5
PA Graduate Center Institute of Government


l 5

MFA Program DPA Program* Policy Government Puglic Othe;
Research Training Service Divisions
Division DiVision Division As Needed

Proposed Personnel Structure of The Martin School:


The Graduate Dean

Director, The Martin School

PA Graduate Cehter Institute of Government

Director of Graduate Studies Director


Academic Program Coordinator ' ' '

Director Director Director
£ I Research Government Public
Faculty DPA* Training Service


*When implemented





November 1983

”Ffi (‘0') 1


the Chance‘


\ Y“


The Lexington Campus has moved to place the book
budget on a recurring basis; implementation is
underway in 1983—84 through a tax on college budgets
of 21. if requested recurring support is received
from the legislature for 1984—85 and 1985—86, the tax
will be reduced or redirected to other critical need
areas on the Lexington Campus. Solving this problem a
high priority as noted in the Five Year Plan, l983-88
(Vol. 1, p. 6).


Inflation is a significant factor in the book budget,
averaging 15—20% per year over the last decade.
$123,600 in 1984—85 and $142,100 in 1985—86 has been
requested to compensate for inflation at a rate of 15%
(Vol. 11, Vol. [1, Five Year Plan, 1983—88).


The Five Year Plan, 1983-88 (Item #40, pp. 223 and
252) requests an increase of $328,700 in 1984-85 and
an additional $16,400 in 1985—85 for 8 FTE
professional staff and 6 technical or student
assistants in 8 critical service areas of library

The book budget for 1982-83 was $2,016,000. For
1983—84 this has increased to $2,141,470 (including
$250,000 for an automated circulation system), and it
is expected to remain at that budgvr level for

1984-85. The Lexington Campus is devoting a large
portion of current resources to the non—recurring
problem and an increase in overall funding is beyond
the scope of present or anticipated resources.

As noted above, an automated circulation system has
been funded for $250,000 and plans are underway for

Compact shelving and patron seating are not addressed
in the Five Year Plan, 1983-88. Those branch
libraries with high theft rates already have security
systems and others will be added as funds permit. The
criterion for funding items under 4a and 4b and other
practical needs is the reduction of theft and losses
to the overall collection, so that funds can be spent
on new titles, not replacements.


Recently the Senate Library Committee discussed the
issue of long range space planning but no further
action was taken.

An administrative committee composed of Paul Willis,
Donald Sands, Jack Blanton, and Warren Denny is
exploring options relating to future library space
needs. At such time as construction funding becomes
certain, a conuittee to advise on use of spice would
be needed. Tnat committee would include faculty



February 15

June 1

June 15
Ju1y 27
August 1
August 8
August 27
August 28
August 28
August 29
August 29




October 15

October 22
October 2