xt7dr785mv25 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7dr785mv25/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1986-10-13  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, October 13, 1986 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 13, 1986 1986 1986-10-13 2020 true xt7dr785mv25 section xt7dr785mv25 LNUVERSHY OF KENTUCKY






26 September 1986

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
October 13, 1986, at 3:00 p.m. in room 115 CON/HSLC Building.

Minutes of September 8, 1986.


Reports on financial status of the Lexington Campus and Medical
Center. Vice President James 0. King, Associate Vice President
Edward Carter, Chancellor Peter P. Bosomworth, and Vice
Chancellor Donald B. Clapp.

Chairman's remarks and announcements.


a. Proposed Policy on Student Attendance at University
Sponsored Functions (circulated under date of 19 September

Randall Dahl




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
October 13, 1986, in Room 115 of the Health Sciences Building.

Wilbur W. Frye, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: Curtis W. Absher*, Frank Allara, Sandra Allen*, Roger
B. Anderson, Richard Angelo, Michael A. Baer, Charles E. Barnhart, Raymond F.
Betts, Dibaker Bhattacharyya*, Tex Lee Boggs, Charlie Boyd*, Jeffery A. Born,
Darla Botkin*, Stanley D. Brunn, Harry Clarke, Emmett Costich*, Ellen
Edmondson*, Donald G. Ely*, Gerald Ferretti*, Thomas R. Ford, James Freeman*,
Michael Freeman, David L. Fulks*, Richard W. Furst, Fletcher Gabbard*, Hans
Gesund*, Donna G. Greenwell, Andrew Grimes, John R. Groves,* O. J. Hahn,
Marilyn Hamann*, Jody Hanks*, Zafar Hasan*, James Hougland, Jr.*, Jennifer
Jacquet*, Mehran Jahad, Joseph Krislov*, James R. Lang, Robert G. Lawson,
Arthur Lieber*, Bruce A. Lucas, Edgar D. Maddox, Paul Mandelstam*, John
Menkhaus*, Robert Murphy, Michael T. Nietzel, Robert C. Noble, Thomas
Olshwesky*, Philip C. Palmgreen*, Robin D. Powell, David J. Prior, Madhira D.
Ram, G. Kendell Rice, Christy Robinson, Thomas C. Robinson, Thomas L. Roszman,
Edgar L. Sagan, Donald E. Sands*, Timothy Sineath, Otis A. Singletary*, Karen
Skaff, Robert H. Spedding*, Michael G. Tearneyk, Sheree Thompson*, Thomas L.
Travis*, Enid Waldhart, Marc J. Wallace, Jesse Weil, Charles T. Wethington,
Carolyn Williams*, Constance P. Wilson*, Peter Winograd.*

Approval of the Minutes of 8 September 1986 was postponed to a
subsequent Senate meeting.

Chairman Frye recognized Professor John Thrailkill, who read the
following memorial resolution on Arthur Crane McFarlan, Department of

Arthur C. McFarlan, known to students and colleagues as "Dr. Mac,"
died on April 9, 1985, in Lexington, at the age of 87. He came to
the University in 1923 to join Arthur McQuiston Miller, founder of
the Department of Geology. In 1927, during Dr. Miller‘s illness,
Dr. Mac became departmental head, a position he held until his
retirement in 1967. In this period he built the Department from a
two~man faculty to one with nine members. Shortly after coming to
the University he led in the development of a graduate program in
geology, so that, beginning in 1925, many geology students earned
the MS degree at UK. Then, during the years of World War II, he
directed the development and teaching of courses in geography. He
also served as State Geologist and Director of the Kentucky Bureau
of Mineral and Topographic Surveys from 1932 to 1934, and Director
again from 1948 to 1958 after the Bureau had once more become the
Kentucky Geological Survey. At this time he was among those who
successfully lobbied to have the Survey transferred to the
University of Kentucky from the politically charged atmosphere of
Frankfort. While Director he was instrumental in arranging joint

*Absence explained.


 Page 2

University Senate Minutes
13 October 1986

state and federal funding of the program for the topographic
mapping of the entire state on the scale of 1:24,000, the first
state, other than Rhode Island, to be completely mapped in this

In 1952 Dr. McFarlan was elected Distinguished Professor of the
Year by his colleagues in the College of Arts and Sciences, and in
1965, he was named Distinguished Member by the Geological Society
of Kentucky. In addition to his membership in the society, which
he had served as president, he was a Fellow of the Geological
Society of America and a member of the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, the Society of Economic Geologists and
Paleontologists, and Sigma Xi.

Over the years Dr. Mac came to be recognized as an authority on the
geology of Kentucky. His updating and considerable revision (1943)
of Dr. Miller's "Geology of Kentucky" (1919) was a major
contribution. He was also the author, or co—author, of more than
50 publications on various aspects of Kentucky stratigraphy and

As a teacher and departmental head, Dr. McFarlan stressed the
importance of field experience in the education of geologists, and
semester after semester headed a caravan of students going into the

countryside every Saturday to gain just such experience. He also
initiated a summer field camp in western Colorado, where
undergraduates were introduced to the geology of the Rocky
Mountains. It was a tent camp, since Dr. Mac always tired to keep
costs for the students as low as possible. As such, accommodations
were far from luxurious, but for nineteen years Dr. and Mrs.
McFarlan (Gail) spent several months each summer camping out. Mrs.
McFarlan was purchasing agent, nurse, confidant and general
resolver of problems for the students.

with the help of Margaret Tuttle of the University's library
system, Dr. McFarlan established the Geology Library, and, for a
number fo years, earmarked departmental funds for its support. He
took great pride, therefore, in seeing it become one of the best
collections of geological literature in the Southeast.

His dahlias (flowers which bloomed after the return from field
camp), were another source of satisfaction. His garden was notable
not only for the variety it contained, but also for the size of the
flowers it produced, ”some the size of dinner plates." Then there
was the added enjoyment of trading root stocks with faculty
colleagues and friends.

A.C. McFarlan was a big man, and in his younger days a shock of red
hair topped off his six feet, five inches. It was thus to be


 Page 3
University Senate Minutes
13 October 1986

expected that he could wield a geology hammer with the best, but it
was perhaps surprising to find that few were his equal in the
delicate task of grinding thinesections down to an even few
hundredths of a millimeter.

At the time of Dr. McFarlan's retirement, alumni and friends
presented the Department with his portrait, which hangs today in
the Geology Library. They also established the McFarlan Fund, as a
token of their appreciation for the education and help that they
had received from him. This fund continues to grow, enabling the
Department to give financial help to students and student projects,
so that it stands as a fitting memorial to Arthur C. McFarlan, for
geology and students were an important part of his life.

Arthur Crane McFarlan was the son of The Reverend and Mrs. Frank C.
McFarlan. He was born in Mansfield, Ohio, on May 7, 1897, but
shortly thereafter the family moved to Cincinnati, Ohio. He
received his bachelor's degree from the University of Cincinnati in
1919, and his doctorate from the University of Chicago in 1924.

He is survived by his wife, Gail Parker McFarlan; a daughter, Mary
Beth Graves; one sister, a brother, three grandchildren and one

Thrailkill requested that this resolution be entered into the minutes
of the University Senate and that copies be sent to the McFarlan family.

The Senate stood for a moment of silent tribute.

Chairman Frye announced that he had invited Vice President James 0.
King, Associate Vice President Ed Carter, Lexington Campus Chancellor Art
Gallaher, Jr., and Medical Center Chancellor Peter P. Bosomworth to present
the University‘s budget process and planning objectives to the University
Senate. Messers. King and Carter will present an overview of the University's
financial status and the Chancellors will address their sectors more
specifically. Chairman Frye then called on Mr. King, whose remarks follow.

KING: Thank you very much. Let me express our appreciation for the
opportunity to appear before the University Senate to describe the budget
process and the major decisions that emanated from it. Last year, we had the
opportunity to discuss with you the biennial budget request. This year we
would like to discuss the University's operating budget that was made possible
by the actions of the 1986 General Assembly. Wilbur has indicated that Ed
Carter and I will discuss the major internal policy issues that went into this
and the Chancellors of the Lexington Campus and the Medical Center will
discuss the preparation and policy issues related to the sector budgets. For
several reasons, I considered coming to you and giving the speech I gave last
year. One of those reasons is that the process we go through with the


 Page 4
University Senate Minutes
13 October 1986

operating budget is a repeat of the process that begins with the biennial
budget and the planning process. It reminded me of the story that is told
about Dizzy Dean back when he was a young pitcher with the St. Louis
Cardinals. Following a game, Dean was interviewed by several newspaper
reporters. Each one asked him where he‘was born. He told the first reporter
he was born in Texas; another he told he was born in Arkansas; and the third
he told he was born in Mississippi. Obviously that caused a great stir in the
press. When the owner of the team called him in, he said: "Diz . . . why in
the hell did you tell each reporter that you were born in a different state?"
to which Dean responded: "Well . . . I thought each one of them wanted an
exclusive!" Therefore, I'll give you a new presentation this year.

First of all I'd like to review the planning process that emanates in the
preparation and adoption of the budget. The internal planning process began
in January 1985, with department, college, and sector involvement and
ultimately led to the adoption by the Board of Trustees of the Five Year Plan
and biennial budget in September, 1985. The Council on Higher Education then
reviewed the University's requests and made its recommendation in November
1985. Governor Collins, preparing her executive budget, made her
recommendations on the University of Kentucky budget to the General Assembly
in January 1986. The General Assembly completed action on the biennial budget
in April 1986, and from that action, the 1986—87 operating budget of the
University of Kentucky was formed and subsequently approved by the Board of
Trustees in June, 1986.

Three or four key points are important for you to understand about this
process: 1) the operating budget is a culmination of a process that began
with planning; 2) we use the same planning objectives in the operating
budget that are included in the biennial budget request and the five—year
plans; and, one which is extremely important for all of us, 3) the
University of Kentucky did well in the 1986 General Assembly. As a matter of
fact, higher education fared well in the 1986 General Assembly and if we
attain the same progress in 1988——using the formula approach—~then higher
education in Kentucky will be essentially at the 100% level which all of us
have sought since the formula was adopted.

This budget did not give us all we asked for, and I don't want to imply that,
but substantial progress was made in comparison to the 1984 budget. We were
able to give a faculty average salary increase of 7% and an average increase
for staff of 6%. In addition to faculty salaries, the action of the General
Assembly had a significant impact on other areas. One of those areas is the
University's research programs, including the EPSCORE funding. We have
identified an appropriation of funds for Centers of Excellence and endowed
chairs——both new. We had funds appropriated at UK for construction and for
programs in Robotics and Manufacturing Systems. We had an appropriation of
funds specifically for the purchase of a super computer on this campus to be
in partnership with the state, with industry and other institutions. And for
the first time, we had an appropriation of funds to purchase approximately 20
million dollars in research and graduate equipment——extremely important if we


 Page 5
University Senate Minutes
13 October 1986

are to move with competence and be competitive in the field of research.
These are program dollars.

We also fared well in the capital construction side. I think the level and
magnitude of this.support is indicated by the fact that we have more under
construction or in the planning stage than the total value of the plan of the
University of Kentucky in 1968. That tells us two things: we have had lots
of inflation and we have lots of construction under way, including the Equine
Center, the Mining and Minerals Building, the new Faculty Club, Ag. Regulatory
Services, etc. In addition to approved building projects at five Community
Colleges, a new Community College will be built in Owensboro. These represent
substantial departures from the 1984 budget, and will, we believe, enhance our
ability to fulfill the mission assigned to the University of Kentucky.

It is important for the members of the faculty to recognize that at the
central administration level, funds are allocated to the sectors based upon .
institutional priorities. The decisions for specific items and funding of
specific units not mandated in the appropriations bill are made by the
chancellors. From an institutional standpoint, let me give you the general
outline of the priorities that are incorporated in the budget: 1) Salaries
were, have been, and will continue to be our number one priority and number
one need for new funds. 2) This budget, unlike the past, incorporates
several Centers of Excellence which have been funded within our formal
allocations. 3) The budget includes additional funds for graduate stipends
'in order to make us more competitive in the recruitment of graduate students.
4) We are giving-and placing a high priority to the purchase of the graduate
research equipment authorized by the 1986 General Assembly and we hope that
all the ordering will be done this year so that delivery can be made and
equipment in place as quickly as possible. 5) The supercomputer authorized
by the General Assembly is being evaluated for both non—recurring and
recurring support as well as for the configuration that best meets the
University of Kentucky's needs. We expect to place an order this academic
year. For those of you who might not be so familiar, we are linking the
supercomputer directly to our Computational Science Center of Excellence that
will be funded beginning our next academic yeare—July lst. Taken together
these items are substantial enhancements of our graduate and research programs
as well as the overall educational program at the University. They will
enchance our ability to move an additional step closer toward national
recognition for graduates, scholarship and research that the Council on Higher
Education‘s Strategic Plan sets out as objectives for us. Ed Carter will go
into some of the details of the budget preparation and the chancellors will
discuss with you their budget decisions at the second level.

Let me conclude with a reminder that the decisions in the preparation of a
budget involve major policy decisions of the institution including priorities
and program direction. I cannot overemphasize the importance to every unit on
the campus and for that reason, I would urge you to work actively in the
revision of the five—year plan that will be initiated early next year.


 Page 6
University Senate Minutes
13 October 1986

It is extremely important to each department and to each college because that
revision will form the basis of our biennial budget request to be submitted to
the Council on Higher Education and to the 1988 session of the General
Assembly. Thank you.

CARTER: I'm not going to give you an exclusive; I'm just going to add on to
what we talked about in the Fall of last year when we came and dealt with the
planning objectives and funding requests. So 1 will hit the highlights of
what's in the 1986—87 operating budget as it relates to those planning
objectives which you saw last Fall. [Copies of the transparencies Mr. Carter
showed are attached.l

As Jim mentioned, our first objective was to maintain our existing programs by
meeting the contracted fixed costs and providing for continued funding both in
personnel and operating expenses as well as dealing with the-commitment to the
affirmative action program of this institution. In planning objective two,
the objectives as we entered this five year planning cycle included: 1)
reaching the benchmark median for all faculty salaries, and, 2) reaching
marketplace levels for staff salaries. We obviously did not do that [see p.
4 attached]. In 1985—86 the UK average Lexington Campus/Medical Center salary
was $34,624. and benchmarks were $37,000, thus putting us behind about

$2,700. With the 7% faculty salary increase in this operating budget, we are
projecting that we can get within $2,100. of the benchmark median. That is
not a great deal of advancement. We don't know where we are in relation to
that number right now, but hopefully we will close the gap some. In the
Community College System, the projection is that we move from $1,200 to within
$600 of benchmark median. In non—faculty staff catch—up, salary objectives
have been established based on comparable jobs at selected benchmark
institutions and/or local industries as appropriate. Based on surveys, staff
salaries are at a level of approximately 90% of the marketplace, and we think
the 6% may cut that by 1%, so we‘re not moving in that area at a very rapid
rate either.

Jim mentioned the Centers of Excellence. Those identified in the planning
process can be found on page 6, attached. Centers which received increased
funding included in this operating budget may be found on attached pages
7—11. The Centers will also come into play in the 1987—88 operating budget.

Planning Objective 4, page 12, was a fairly significant factor in our five
year plan. We are not able to do everything we intended to do, but made what
we hope is a significant stride in one of the areas I think is of great
concern to all faculty——attempting to deal with graduate student stipends (see
page 13). We are at an average of somewhere around $5,200. and we added
$780,000 to that fund——hopefully moving halfway toward the benchmarks in terms
of graduate students.

Jim mentioned the special equipment funding (see page 14). The area that
probably suffered most in terms of our planning objectives and our ability to
meet those was to enhance and develop academic areas of excellence and


 Page 7
University Senate Minutes
13 October 1986

adequately support current academic programs (see p. 15). We were able to do
some things in that area, but in terms of increasing and further enhancing
generally the academic program of the institution, we were not able to meet
that objective because of funding levels. To give you some dollar figures see
chart, p. 17. For an overview of the sources, see pages 18 and 19. For your
information, see pages 20 and 22. That is a very quick overview.

GALLAHER: I appreciate very much the opportunity to meet with you to discuss
the 1986—87 budget for the Lexington Campus. Mr. King and Mr. Carter have
provided a brief overview of the process and objectives, so I want to couch my
comments to you around the organizational framework used by Ed Carter that
characterized our budget. Before getting into specifics, however, I want to
make a few generalizations about the entire process.

The first is the basic planning process. As Chancellor, I worked with the
President on overall budget strategy. I then worked with the deans and
directors who in turn developed the basic data from the academic and service
units. [As an aside, Gallaher indicated that much of the process is
determined for us by formats that come to the University from the Council on
Higher Education.]

A second generalization is that this year there was an overalay put on the
overall planning process and that was the strategum of the Centers for
Excellence. It is essentially political in nature. We felt that this concept
might improve our chances with the legislature by communicating some of our
strengths and potential contributions to those responsible for understanding
this place and making judgments about it. I think that was a wise strategy
and it is in part responsible for some of the success we've enjoyed this year.

Third, I want to put a few figures before you that are applicable to the
Lexington Campus. The total budget from general funds on the Lexington Campus
for 1986—87 is 147.4 million dollars. with benefits and debt service, that
figure increases to 169.7 million dollars, representing a total budget
increase over 85—86 of 11.5 million. The distribution of our budget roughly
is as follows: 80.9% to personnel; 15.3 to current expenses; 1.4% to
equipment; and 2.4% to student aid. As Mr. King and Mr. Carter have noted,
the biennnial budget request and the operating budget for the total university
and for the sectors are built around the same planning objectives. Those
objectives included: provisions for the continuation of existing programs,
provisions for adequate support for current faculty and staff, support for the
College of Engineering to develop and enhance graduate and research programs
of this institution, and appropriately manage a special program appropriation
made directly to us by the state. Let me spend just a few moments on each of
these to indicate how our budget increase was spent.

Our highest priority was of course for support of faculty and staff. Roughly
half of our increase went to the personnel sector. In addition, we had
another approximate half million dollars for Ag. Extension. Our concern for


 .Page 8
University Senate Minutes
13 October 1986

supporting faculty and staff is also closely related to the second
objective—-enhancing graduate and research programs. The equipment that will
be possible in our sector——made available to us through the 21 million bonding
capacity approved by the legislature——will have an incredible impact on our
area. Approximately half of those dollars will go toward equipment needs of
the Lexington Campus. From the small equipment needs to the supercomputer, we
have had an incredible boost to our sector. And as you may know, Vice
Chancellor Royster is now in the process of screening applications and making
allocations on the research side.

A second element in this objective is that we increased our level of teaching
assistant support some 24% overall this year. That comes to about $700,000.
Most of the increase in teaching assistant support, of course, goes to our
sector. This infusion combined with the funds set aside over the last three
years to offset the tuition charges, gives us an excellent opportunity to get
this institution into a more competitive posture than we have been in some 15
years in attracting TA's to this institution.

A third item that belongs here of course is the Robotics Center——a specially
earmarked budget item for our College of Engineering. A fourth area for us
and particularly germane to the Lexington Campus is the legislative support
for the EPSCORE proposal, a 6 million dollar research enhancement grant—~about
half of which comes from the state. It's a state—wide grant, as you know, but
approximately 75—80% of the funds are relevant to the Lexington Campus.

A third planning objective related to the two just mentioned is support
for the designated Centers of Excellence. There are a couple of comments
about the Center concept. The Centers that are noted in the budget are
envisioned as multidisciplinary, with some to receive support the first year
of the biennium and some to receive support beginning in the second year of
the biennium. In our sector $100,000 has been added to the equine research
center this year and $300,000 went to the Public Administration area, a Center
for Excellence that was put in at the Governor's request. Although not funded
until next year, we have begun the search for a Director of Computational
Sciences and as pointed out earlier, we are seeking a Director of the Robotics

A fourth planning objective provides for continuation of existing
programs. We‘ve been working for some time to get a variety of sustaining
activities off a non—recurring funding base. One of our biggest efforts to
date has been the library, which as recently as three or four years ago was
funded on a 2 million dollar non—recurring basis.

Under the fourth objective, another big area of concern is current
expenses. We're already considerably out of kilter in this area, and
threatening to becoming more so——especially, with the infusion of the
computing and research equipment. Another area where the pinch is felt is in
the form of gifts, which we must agree in advance to maintain. For example,
this year we received a $252,000 increase in current expenses and virtually all


 i Page 9_
University Senate Minutes
13 October 1986

that money was allocated to promised maintenance and computer hardware. There
is no question that this continues to be major problem area——one that we‘re
sensitive to and one which were working on.

While not part of our new dollars, I should note that this objective accounts
for the sustaining of current programs; and it is in this area where much of
the internal reallocation of dollars occurs——at the sector level as well as at
the college level. High priorities for us include Engineering, especially
Electrical, and B&E, particularly a Management and Information Science program
that is being developed over there. Other areas accountable in this objective
are the fixed cost on utilities and several mandated programs including the
Geological Survey, University Press of Kentucky, etc.

Mr. King listed the capital construction projects, so there is no reason to
repeat them here.

I do want to mention one item that has to do with our fund balances and the
so-called tax that we levy against your budgets on the Lexington Campus. As
you are aware, we leave most fund balances in the colleges to be used at the
college's discretion——used for a variety of excellent purposes—~but there are
certain kinds of activities that require fund balance expenditures to be made
centrally. So we have a tax in order to meet obligations for the coming

year. Just to give you some feel for what we are about in that area, $600,000
of those funds are going into library books; $150,000 is earmarked for fire
safety projects in our sector; $50,000 into sidewalk and road repairs; and
well over the $430,000 designated by the Lexington Campus to deal with
asbestos removal.

In conclusion I feel better about our financial condition right now than at
any time since I've been in the administration. We received absolutely
excellent support for research hardware and we've been investing fairly
heavily with our own resources. We‘re making progress on the salary front as
Jim King indicated. It‘s not as good as we would like, but we have made
considerable headway. If we could get the benchmarks to stand still—~just
for a little while—~we'd be in good shape. Thank you.

BOSOMWORTH: The biennial budget planning process began two years ago at
Medical Center retreats, but the development of the strategy we've been
following really began five years ago. That led to an agreement to
development planning around Centers of Excellence. Eventually more than 160
faculty and administrators from all Medical Center colleges and the hospital
were organized into 10 groups and were asked to evaluate existing resources
and potential for excellence in ten program areas. We also asked them to make
specific program proposals, including the budgetary elements. Subsequently,
five programs were proposed for resource and program enhancements in the
biennium which we are now in. All of these programs will require _
multidisciplinary participation; there are only one or two that are actually
limited to a single college. They all basically have an expectation of
involving multiple colleges and hopefully that involvement will extend to the


 Page 10
University Senate Minutes
13 October 1986

entire campus of the University where it is appropriate. Most, therefore,
will incorporate faculty from several colleges. The specific program areas
are: Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technology, the Aging Program, the Cancer
Program, and jointly with Dr. Gallaher‘s sector the Biomedical Engineering
Program, and Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering. These programs have been
funded or hopefully will be funded in the next year of this biennium and will
significantly enhance our capability to move toward Centers of Excellence. I
believe that our faculty has been highly receptive to this approach; they've
been actively involved in it in many instances and we are hopeful that the
concept will survive to another biennium as we look to the future.

We have proposed expanding the Centers concept in the next biennium to
include Heart, Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Occupational and Environmental
and Health Sciences, Oral Health, Nutrition, and Health Promotion and Disease
Prevention. Some of those, particularly Nutrition, will have an impact on the
Lexington Campus, and will necessitate some joint planning.

Regarding the Medical Center budget, I am just going to give you a
perspective of how we finance ourselves in the Medical Center. I‘m not going
to give you a lot of individual numbers, just some percentages of the state
appropriations based on historical figures of what the percent of the state
appropriation is with reference to the total operating budget of our principle
units. The state appropriation to the University Hospital represents only 9%
of the total operating cost of the University Hospital. Therefore, we are
generating the rest from services that we provide. The state appropriation to
the College of Medicine when taking into account all sources, including
grants, contracts, and professional fees is approximately 26% of the operating
budget of the College of Medicine. The College of Dentistry state
appropriation represents 66%; the College of Pharmacy 57%; the College of
Nursing 75%; and the College of Allied Health Professions 78%. So that's the
base that we're building on in terms of relative percentage of state
appropriations within each of those colleges. The State‘s response to
biennial budget has created for us what I believe to be a positive
environment. The state's response has created a positive environment for
higher education in general. The recognition of the importance of higher
education in the Governor's speeches, the rallies sponsored by the Advocates
for Higher Education and the increased funding was long overdue and was very
well received. I am particularly appreciative of the role the President of
the University played in that process in terms of providing up front and
behind the scenes leadership in achieving many of these objectives.

The increased appropriations for salaries and Centers of Excellence
will have significant impact. The regular salary increase fund should permit
us to at least maintain our relative salary position with other institutions
and the specia