xt7fbg2h7h3c https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7fbg2h7h3c/data/mets.xml Lexington, Kentucky University of Kentucky 20040210 minutes English University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2004-02-feb10. text Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2004-02-feb10. 2004 2011 true xt7fbg2h7h3c section xt7fbg2h7h3c 


                          Meeting of the Board of Trustees
                              University of Kentucky
                                    2:00 P.M.
                                 February 10, 2004
                   Board Room, 18th Floor Patterson Office Tower


Accompanying Materials:

Academic Affairs Committee Report
AACR 1      Lexington Community College Management Responsibilities


      Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky, Tuesday,
February 10, 2004.

      The Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky met at 2:00 p.m. (Lexington time)
on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 in the Board Room on the 1 8th Floor of Patterson Office Tower.

      A.    Meeting Opened

      Mr. Steven S. Reed, Chair, called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m., and Ms. Marianne
Smith Edge gave the invocation.

      B.    Roll Call

        The following members of the Board of Trustees answered the call of the roll:
Marianne Smith Edge, Davy Jones, Michael Kennedy, Robert P. Meriwether, Billy Joe Miles,
Phillip Patton, Elissa Plattner, Steven S. Reed (Chair), Frank Shoop, Marian Moore Sims, Alice
Stevens Sparks, Myra Leigh Tobin, Rachel Watts, JoEtta Y. Wickliffe, Russ Williams, Elaine A.
Wilson, and Barbara S. Young. Absent from the meeting were James F. Hardymon, Pamela R.
May, and Billy B. Wilcoxson. The University administration was represented by President Lee
T. Todd, Jr., Provost Michael Nietzel, Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration
Dick Siemer, and Acting General Counsel Barbara Jones.

        Members of the various news media were also in attendance. A quorum being present,
the Chair declared the meeting officially open for the conduct of business at 2: 1 1 p.m.

      C.    Consent Agenda

      Mr. Reed said that the next item on the agenda is the approval of the Minutes from the
January 27th meeting which is on the consent agenda. He pointed out that a revised set of
Minutes had been distributed to the Board for action. The revisions in those Minutes are noted at
the top of the first page. He asked for a motion of approval. Mr. Shoop moved approval of the
Minutes. Ms. Sims seconded the motion, and it carried without dissent. Dr. Meriwether
abstained from voting.

      D.    Lexington Community College Management Responsibilities (AACR 1)

      Ms. Sparks, Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee, reported that the Committee met
as late as yesterday. She thanked the members of the Committee: Elaine Wilson, Barbara
Young, Elissa Plattner, and Michael Kennedy for their admirable performance. The Committee
spent a great deal of time on the issue, and most importantly, they kept an open mind. She said
that she appreciated the time the Committee members gave to this issue. She thanked Dr. Todd
for allowing the Board's committee system to work and to facilitate every need that she felt they
had. She thanked Dr. Kerley for his dedication to Lexington Community College (LCC) and for
his cooperation in dealing with the Committee.


2 -

      Ms. Sparks reported that the Committee had three lengthy meetings at which time anyone
who wanted to speak was permitted and welcomed. She said that she, along with Barbara Young
and Michael Kennedy, attended the faculty senate meeting in order to get more input. She has
had a lot of discussions and gone through a lot of correspondence dating back to 2000. She said
that she feels the Committee has acted in good faith in dealing with a very emotional issue.

      Ms. Sparks reported that a revised AACR 1 had been distributed to the Board and noted
that the changes made by the Committee are in red. She pointed out that "pending legislative
approval" had been added in the recommendation because everyone knows that this will have to
go to Frankfort. She said that Michael Kennedy added the sections that begin with "whereas"
and are highlighted in red. She asked Chairman Reed if it would be appropriate for her to read

      For the benefit of the audience, Mr. Reed said that he thought it would be appropriate for
Ms. Sparks to read each section that begins with whereas and is highlighted in red. He said that
it would help the audience to understand the length the Committee has gone to in reaching this
resolution as well as taking their concerns to heart with the changes that the Committee has

      Ms. Sparks said that it was, also, her preference to read them. She read the following
sections in the resolution:

      Whereas Lexington Community College and the University of Kentucky have been
      closely associated institutions for four decades; and

      Whereas both institutions have as major goals the quality education of Kentucky's
      citizens; and

      Whereas the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools has declared recently that
      Lexington Community College is on probationary accreditation solely because of its lack
      of autonomy from the University of Kentucky; and

      Whereas the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky has reluctantly concluded
      that Southern Association of Colleges and Schools position on the matter of autonomy
      and accreditation has made it impossible to adjust the existing, long-term relationship or
      develop a new connection between the two institutions such that "Lexington Community
      College is part of the University of Kentucky" in any meaningful way; and

      Whereas Lexington Community College could unquestionably be considered an
      autonomous institution within the Kentucky Community and Technical College System,
      thereby having Southern Association of Colleges and Schools accreditation; and,

      Whereas it appears that Lexington Community College would be at an advantage
      financially by being an institution under the auspices of the Kentucky Community and
      Technical College System; and


3 -

      Whereas many of the strong ties between Lexington Community College and the
      University of Kentucky can be maintained, and even enhanced, through the development
      of additional agreements and contracts, befitting two independent, autonomous,
      accredited institutions:

      Be it therefore resolved that the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees request that
      the President and the administration make concerted, long-term efforts to maintain and
      enhance those aspects of the University of Kentucky - Lexington Community College
      relationship that benefit the students, staff, and faculty of Lexington Community College
      and, as importantly, augment the learning experience for citizens of the Commonwealth
      of Kentucky; and

      Be it therefore further resolved that the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees
      recommend to the Governor, the Kentucky General Assembly, and the Council on
      Postsecondary Education that the governance and management responsibilities for the
      University of Kentucky Lexington Community College be delegated to the Kentucky
      Community and Technical College System, upon the effective date of the enabling
      legislation, with the following provisos:

      Ms. Sparks said that the next change is in number 4 and she read that change.

      That the real property of the Lexington Community College and the University of
      Kentucky designated for use by the Lexington Community College shall remain the real
      property of the University of Kentucky. This is the addition: The University of
      Kentucky shall extend the use of the Lexington Community College facilities to the
      Lexington Community College for a minimum of five (5) years. The University of
      Kentucky shall not direct the Lexington Community College to vacate the Lexington
      Community College facilities until such time that a mutually agreed upon alternative site
      or sites have been reached between the University of Kentucky and the Lexington
      Community College.

      Ms. Young said that she would like to amend that section. She asked Mr. Williams to
distribute copies of the recommended amendment. She read the following amendment:

      The University of Kentucky shall extend the use of the facilities occupied by the
      Lexington Community College to the Lexington Community College for a minimum of
      five (5) years. The University of Kentucky shall not direct the Lexington Community
      College to vacate those facilities until such time that a mutually agreed upon alternative
      site or sites have been reached between the University of Kentucky and the Kentucky
      Community and Technical College System.

      Ms. Young said that this amendment was suggested by the Legal Counsel, and it makes it
a little clearer.

      Ms. Sparks asked if the resolution should be voted on as a whole or should the
amendment be voted on now.


4 -

      Ms. Jones, Acting General Counsel, said that it could be amended now or later.

      Mr. Reed said the amendment would be voted on now. He asked for a motion to approve
the amendment. Ms. Young made a motion to approve the amendment and reflect the language
that she had read. Ms. Wilson seconded the motion, and it carried without dissent. Dr.
Meriwether abstained from voting. Mr. Reed asked Ms. Sparks to proceed.

      Ms. Sparks continued with the revisions.

      Change in number 7 -- The word "administrative" has been deleted.

      Change in C, under number 7 -- Employees shall maintain a salary not less than their
      previous salary as of July 1, 2004. The addition to this is: The amounts paid to part-time
      and adjunct faculty per credit hour shall not be less than previously paid.

      Change in number 8 -- That students enrolled in the University of Kentucky Lexington
      Community College through June 30, 2006 shall have all of the responsibilities, services,
      privileges, and rights accorded to them as University of Kentucky students. The
      privileges shall include, but not be limited to, tickets to athletic events, homecoming
      queen contests, the Great Teacher Award Contest, and the University of Kentucky
      scholarship programs. These students shall pay the mandatory University of Kentucky
      student fees through June 30, 2006. On July 1, 2006 and thereafter, Lexington
      Community College students may elect to participate in student services and activities
      provided by the University of Kentucky and shall pay the appropriate fees for these
      services and activities. The addition is to include the following fees: Athletics, Student
      Government Association, WIRFL Student Radio, Student Activities, Student Center,
      Student Health Plan, Technology Fee, Seaton Center Fee and Student Affairs. Lexington
      Community College students shall continue to be provided access to the University of
      Kentucky residence halls.

      Ms. Tobin asked that the word Contest at the end of Great Teacher Award be deleted.

      Ms. Sparks said that it might be what it is called.

      Ms. Tobin said it was not. It is called Great Teacher Award.

      Ms. Sparks said that she considered that a friendly edit and asked Mr. Reed for his

      Mr. Reed said that was fine.

      Ms. Wickliffe asked if this would allow the students to use the Johnson Center as well.

Ms. Sparks replied, yes.


      Ms. Wickliffe inquired that they can use it with the fee.

      Ms. Sparks replied, of course, the library is open to all Kentuckians.

      Ms. Sims said the resolution should probably say the Seaton Center and Johnson Center.

      Ms. Sparks called upon Provost Nietzel for his response.

      Provost Nietzel said that it is the Seaton Center.

      Ms. Sparks clarified that it is the same thing as the Seaton Center.

      Ms. Sparks continued with number 9 in the resolution. This language is new -- students
enrolled at Lexington Community College on, or before, September 1, 2004, shall have six (6)
years to complete the degree program in which they are enrolled and receive a diploma conveyed
by the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees.

      She said that these items complete the latest revisions to AACR 1. She reiterated that the
Committee has met a lot and very seriously considered this resolution. She reported that it was
passed yesterday unanimously by the Academic Affairs Committee to recommend approval to
the Board of Trustees. She moved approval of the resolution, and Ms. Wilson seconded the

      Mr. Reed asked if there was any discussion, and Dr. Meriwether said he would like to

      Dr. Meriwether gave the following comments:

      "I don't speak terribly well so I will be as straight as I can about this. We come here
today with a terribly divided situation. Not so much the people on this Board because I don't
even know where most of them stand. We come divided between our student body, our faculty
senate, our students on the campus, faculty here, and a good number of our alumni who are not
being represented.

      We also are in the process of pulling a ruse over the state legislature. There has been
enough misinformation about this thing today, this proposal today, to drive a truck through. The
fact is, this has been going on for 2 12 years. Your first statement in the beginning says that you
have tried for a long period of time and only recently have we been told that we were on
probation. That's not right. It's right there in front of you. O.K. That's just not true. This
president and this administration has known about this for 2 12 years. They were informed of it
2 12 years ago. This Board knew nothing about it.

      I don't come here today to tell you (interrupted by applause from audience). Let's just
talk facts. I don't come here today to tell you that we should be affiliated with KCTCS or we
shouldn't be. To be perfectly honest ladies and gentlemen, I don't have enough sense to know
that. I can tell you a lot about the Medical Center and some that will curl your hair. But, I don't



know anything about this. I do know one thing. This Board is not informed. It doesn't know
what's going on. And, I say that to you because my first inkling of this was two months ago.
When I found out about it, I tried to discover up here what the end point was going to be. It
seemed to me that everyone I talked to gave me the end point that this is what we were going to
do. We were going to turn this over to KCTCS.

      Well, not knowing much about it, I asked why. I got told we were on probation, and I got
a pretty good list of the things we were on probation for LCC. They didn't seem to be academic
in nature. So, I called SACS. I said what's the problem -- why is it we can't work this out. Dr.
Rogers, just so that we're sure we're talking facts here, Dr. Rogers told me on the phone, and
there were others listening in, that he had told the administration at this university he had no dog
in this hunt. He simply had the criteria outlined by SACS. That he had been made firmly aware
that our administration had no intention of abiding by those guidelines and that he had given
them up to three years to come to grips with that. Other institutions, Arkansas, Louisiana, a
number of others, have come to that.

      My problem is for 2 12 years this damn Board sat here and didn't know anything about it.
Two months ago we begin to find inklings of it, and two weeks ago we had a meeting. You're
quite correct, and if it hadn't been for Barbara Young, it would have been run through then. The
bottom line is, I don't know how to make a decision today folks and neither do any of you at this
table because you have been feed a bunch of pabulum -- most of it untrue -- some of it half true.

      There may be a good reason we'd go to KCTCS. I don't know that. There may be a
good reason to stay with LCC. But, I will tell you this. If I'm going to make an error, it's going
to be an error just like I made a moment ago in not participating with a fraudulent procedure.
This is something that has not been discussed with the Board. The Board has no information
about it except what it's gotten secondarily. Many recommendations have been made to the
Chairman about Mr. Rogers, Mr. Allen, both of whom are the individuals that put Auburn
University on probation for exactly the same reason -- lack of Board information.

      If we sit here today and separate ourselves from Lexington Community College, we're
going to have to go against somebody. We're going to have to go against this Academic Affairs
Committee or we're going to have to go against our administration. Personally, I'd rather us not
do anything. I'd rather have Rogers come up here and sit in that chair and have him tell me --
tell you exactly the same thing he told me. The truth is he hasn't been talked to very much. If I
can't have that, and I've got to err on the side of we're going to make this decision today, if I
want to be separated from somebody, I'd rather be separated from this administration and this
kind of decision-making than I had be from the students, the faculty, and the people that
represent (interrupted by applause from audience).

      In my own business, I run it like a benevolent dictator. I like that term. I own it. I own
100% of the stock. Some people at this table have forgotten that they do not own this university,
and they do not consult, they do not provide timely information, and how in hell this Board can
sit around this table and choose to give up 8,000 students, a community college, based on one
day's discussion, and a good bit of incorrect information, is beyond anything I can imagine.



       So, I will leave you ladies and gentlemen to make your decision. It's been made clear to
me that my presence here is not wanted, and I can understand why by some of these Board
members. I will not resign, Mr. President. I will be there looking over your shoulder every
minute of every day." (applause from audience)

       (Dr. Meriwether left the meeting at 2:32 p.m. Lexington time.)

       Mr. Reed said that there has been a motion and a second. He called for additional

       Ms. Watts said that she wanted to thank the Academic Affairs Committee, President
Todd, and President Kerley for everything that they have done to get together and really talk
about everything, very in-depth discussions and very proactive discussions. She said that she
thought it was with great reluctance that this piece was passed forward. She did not think it was
something that anyone sitting here was looking forward to or is really excited about. But, she
thinks that it is probably the best decision that the Board could come to for the future of UK and
LCC. There are a lot of good things in this resolution, a lot of provisions to insure that students
still get their health services, benefits from being able to live on campus, and things like that.
She said that she had received a petition from 3,000 students from LCC saying that they would
hope that she would support not to move LCC to KCTCS. She said that she has a great deal of
respect and reverence for the decision that the Committee made, but she also needs to represent
her constituency and support them. She said that she cannot blame them for wanting to stay with
UK, and she supports them in that opinion and that decision. Again, she thanked the Committee
and expressed her appreciation to them for all the thought that was put into this resolution and
also into what the students need in the future of Kentucky.

       Mr. Miles commented that he had not been to any of the meetings, and he thinks the
Board has to go with the Committee process. He said, in his opinion, if this had been split out
when all the other schools were split out, he does not think that the University would have the
SACS problem that it has today. They would have been run separate like all the other
community colleges, and that was probably a compromise at the time.

       Mr. Patton said that this resolution properly goes to great lengths to protect the rights of
students and staff of the existing LCC. He said that he wanted to be reassured that KCTCS is on
board in honoring those same protections.

       President Todd said that he had been in conversations with Mike McCall, President of
KCTCS, throughout this process. The KCTCS Board passed a resolution that indicated a
preference that if the transfer were to take place, that the faculty and staff would go under their
personnel system. He said that he had indicated to President McCall that it would not be
acceptable to him or to the University of Kentucky Board. The language in this resolution
provides that the faculty and staff be treated just like those of 1998 that went over to the KCTCS
system. He said that he told President McCall that maybe he has a better personnel system than
he used to have, but he has to be the seller in that case and the University's employees have to be
the buyers. It is their decision.


8 -

       President Todd said that he will recommend to Chair Reed that, if this resolution passes,
the University put together a working committee, and KCTCS would like to do the same whereas
the legal, human resources, and finance are represented as well as a Board member from each
institution to work through the details so that the legislation can move forward. President
McCall said that some of these things added might give him some speed bumps, but it has been
done for the protection of the students, the faculty and staff. In their last conversation, President
McCall said those things are not show stoppers. They are just speed bumps.

       Mr. Patton said that everyone knew that the General Assembly had to pass it. When
House Bill 1 was passed in 1997, legislatively they protected the staff and students of all of the
community colleges. He said that he only assumed they would be consistent and do the same
this time.

       President Todd said that the University would have to draft a bill. Something would have
to get introduced by the 17th and I9th in the different houses. He pointed out that it is a short
timetable, and the University has to get a bill introduced. There will then be time to write the
specific language, and the University will mirror a lot of the language that was in the previous
House Bill 1. He thanked Judge Patton for bringing the legislative necessity to the
administration's attention and said that he appreciated it. He said that they knew that the process
is going to be to come to grips with KCTCS -- then go to the CPE because they have to be able
to agree with this -- and then get the legislation approved.

       Dr. Jones thanked Alice Sparks for the outstanding efforts she has made navigating
through all of this. It has just been extraordinary -- the length she has gone through and the time
that she has spent on this, as far as to how to get LCC out of the status quo, which it cannot stay
in the status quo, so what would happen that is different.

       "This is a large issue with many perspectives of consideration. Prior to a final Board
action on such an issue, the Board contemplates that it would obtain input from many different
vantage points. To facilitate the Board's obtaining input from a number of vantage points, it has
identified in its regulations a number of processes to optimally take place to ensure all those
vantage points are covered in getting this input secured.

       One of these is the action of the Academic Affairs Committee, to do as Alice has done,
and develop a recommendation to the Board. Another process is for the President to make a
recommendation to the Board. The President in his administrative hat utilizes his fine team of
administrative officers and Task Forces to generate ideas and information for him.

       He also wears the academic hat as Chair of the University Senate. The University Senate
under the Board's regulations is the organ of governance of the 2,000+ University Faculty, and
the Board anticipates in its regulations that the input of the Faculty through its Senate arm would
be meritorious, impactful and perhaps persuasive. In the regulations where the Board is
providing for input on academic organization from the President, in the same sentence, it wants
advice from the University President and its wants advice form the University Senate, and it
doesn't measure one there being more impactful than the other.


9 -

      Unfortunately, because SACS has only just recently made really clear some of the
latitude and the options that might have been available to consider on their merits, the Senate
processes that it has in place for weighing some of these options (that we only at the 11th hour
realize that the latitude possibly offers) those Senate processes have not been engaged. The
Senate body for example, has a committee for it that is analogous to the AAC for the Board.
That process has unfortunately not had a chance to be engaged. So, the Senate had a meeting
yesterday (the University Senate) and background was given, Dr. Kerley, Dr. Nietzel were there,
they had the floor and shared information. Jeff Dembo gave a brief background on the other
activities of the AAC committee. But the Senate did not endorse any particular option.
Recognizing that the Senate's processes by which it would inform itself, by which it would make
informed recommendation, had not been engaged, it specifically voted 3:1 to not endorse
AACR1 at this time.

      So, I have a constituency as a Faculty Senator and as a Faculty Trustee. Just on principle
I have to embrace, protect and advocate for the presumption that the Board has made that the
Senate's processes, if they were exercised, might identify an LCC outcome that is highly
meritorious that is not the present AACR 1, that might be persuasive for the Board to adopt. So,
if today I vote for the AACR1, I would feel I would in essence that I was disavowing the Board's
presumption of the importance and impact of the Senate's processes of developing a
recommendation to the Board. So, as I vote today not for AACR1, I wanted the Board to
understand my clear, unique context here, in which the motivation with respect to my
constituency is not the same as other motivations that might be of concern to other members of
the Board."

      Dr. Plattner gave the following comments:

      "With all respect and admiration for people who believe in their principles, I feel that a
fellow Board member has impugned our veracity and our dignity. And, those who have chosen
to applaud a fellow member of our group who has called down the truth on our heads and
questioned that. I must state that I wish Dr. Meriwether had remained among us so that we could
say to him, we are nothing as individuals. We are only of value by working together. We are
nothing as singular people. We're only as true as the partnership that we are.

      The committee system works, finally at this university. And good people who you count
on and who you have judgment in made various decisions for various committees, and I've
always believed that they've brought their very best to those committees. There's not any reason
to further laud the Academic Committee. We've been chaired by a champion, and those who
have served on the Committee have championed the causes that are difficult.

      But I must say to you that today must be the end. Today must be the end of us not sitting
around the table and trusting and having confidence in each other. All the meetings have been
open, phone lines crackling, and e-mails buzzing. If I've ever seen a committee that's been
conducted right out in front of this building, this is the one. So, over a time that is very, very
difficult I know to all, I call out to Dr. Meriwether, a man who speaks his mind, who's a man of
principles and ideals, too, and where are we but a group that honors each other's opinions and
attitudes. But, my friends, if we do not trust each other and do not believe in each other, then


10 -

what we are as a Board of Trustees is really not worth the paper that these ideas have been
written on.

       I would call out to all of us. We're like all Kentuckians -- just as stubborn and hard-
headed as they come, opinionated, a variety of the right, but in the end, what do we do? We
work together, and so, as you drive or fly back home to Paducah, Dr. Meriwether, we don't ever
want you to stop speaking your mind, but we do want you to know that we are people who are of
integrity, who are of dignity, and who have learned the truth and worked hard with the truth, and
that can never be called to question."

       Professor Kennedy gave the following comments:

       "I share Dr. Meriwether's concerns that the Board had not communicated directly with
SACS. No part of the Board had, although Dr. Todd had, and members of his administration and
Dr. Kerley had. So, I began to raise that issue fairly lately -- a couple of weeks ago, and I
wanted to get a SACS representative to come and speak to either the Academic Affairs
Committee or the Board. And it turns out that they sort of don't do that. It might have been
arranged with more time, but what was arranged was a telephone call between a SACS
representative, and I guess it was the President of SACS, Jack Allen, Dr. Todd, Dr. Kerley, Dr.
Nietzel and myself, and I wrote a summary of that. I thought I would read that because I think it
provides some facts that the Board might find useful. The most important specific thing that I
learned was that if the decision was to move LCC to KCTCS -- that would be a "major change."
LCC would be visited again by a "substantive change committee," and we'll call that Committee
X. Issues related to autonomy would go away as would the expiration of LCC accreditation. So,
it would be a new ballgame. If, however, we make a decision to the UK administrative structure
to make LCC autonomous, but still part of UK, but still separately accredited, then we would be
visited by the special committee. We'll call that Committee Y. Well, there was a letter dated 3
July from Rogers of SACS. That would recommend to the 77 member SACS commission on
colleges whether sufficient autonomy had been gained to prevent LCC accreditation. The
commission would vote. There's a risk there. The Academic Affairs Committee of the Board
was disinclined to take that risk.

       I did ask the question -- suppose the LCC president and the UK president both reported to
the current Board of Trustees? The answer was in that case, assuming all the other SACS
requirements, separate this, separate that, separate the other, a whole laundry list of things that
each institution had to do to perform on its own. But, that would constitute autonomy. But then,
of course, LCC wouldn't be a part of UK. It would be competing with UK for attention from the
same Board of Trustees. It would fall to the Board to make decisions about buildings, revenue
allocations, fundraising and so on, and I gathered from all the Board members I spoke to that that
was not a desirable situation. We'd put the Board in the position of being sort of a junior
Council on Postsecondary Education to have two presidents reporting to the Board and us
making the decisions about allocations. Long story short, no matter how we try to finagle it, if
UK and LCC are part of the same institution in any significant sense, SACS is not going to be
satisfied enough to accredit both institutions separately. And, if we try and the committee
decides we fail, LCC looses its accreditation. So, I came away from the phone call convinced
that SACS is shortsighted and somewhat bound by a hierarchical view of postsecondary


11 -

education. I think the current situation works quite well and ought to be allowed -- that the only
reasonable course of action was to recommend that LCC be administratively managed by
KCTCS but with strong ties to UK where it mattered, physical proximity, dorms