xt7j0z71013j https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7j0z71013j/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1981-03-09  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 9, 1981 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 9, 1981 1981 1981-03-09 2020 true xt7j0z71013j section xt7j0z71013j UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY


March 2, 1981

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on lvlonday, March 9,
1981 at 3:00 P.M. in room CB 106.


University Senate l\4inutes: February 19, 198].

Chairman's Remarks.

Action Items:

a) Proposal to establish a Department of Telecom—
munications, College of Communications. (Cir-

culated under date of March 2, 1981.)

Proposal to rescind the Honor Code, College of
Dentistry. (Circulated under date of March 2,

Regort: Professor A.W. Patrick, Chairman, Resource
Allocation Subcommittee. '

Elbert W. Ockerman




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 9, l98l,
in Room l06 of the Classroom Building

George Schwert, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Tawny R. Acker, M. l. H. Aleem, M. M. Ali*, Richard G. Alvey,
Rusty Ashcraft, Lyle N. Back, Michael A. Baer*, Charles E. Barnhart, James C. Beidleman,
Joanne 1. Bell, Jacques Benninga*, John J. Bernardo, Leslie Bingham, Brack A. Bivins,
William H. Blackburn, Jack Blanton, Scott F. Boggess, James A. Boling*, Robert N. Bostrom,
Vickey Bowen, Joseph T. Burch, Lois J. Campbell, W. Merle Carter*, Ben Castle, Harry M.
Caudill*, Ralph Christensen*, D. Kay Clawson*, Glenn B. Collins*, J. Donald Coonrod,
Raymond H. Cox, M. Ward Crowe, Philip H. Crowley, Charles Cunningham*, Guy M. Davenport*,
George Denemark*, David E. Denton*, Louis Diamond, Joseph M. Dougherty, John Drake,
Phillip A. Duncan*, Anthony Eardley, William D. Ehmann, Joseph Engelberg, Paul G. Forand*,
Art Gallaher, John H. Garvey*, Peter Gillis*, Thomas C. Gray*, George W. Gunther*,
Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar Hansan*, Virgil W. Hays, Jack Heath*, Carl E. Henrickson*,
Raymond R. Hornback, Cathy Howell, Eugene Huff*, Michael H. Impey, Keith H. Johnson*,
Greg Jones, Edward J. Kifer*, Jane Kotchen, Stephen Langston, Thomas P. Lewis, Gordon P.
Liddle, David Listerman, Rey M. Longyear*, William E. Lyons, Nancy Loomis, Paul Mandelstam*,
Tim Mann, William Marshall, Emanuel Mason, Sally S. Mattingly*, Marion E. McKenna*,
Susan Meers, John M. Mitchell, Philip J. Noffsinger, Elbert W. Ockerman*, James R.
Ogletree*, Thomas Olshewsky, Clayton Dmvig, Leonard V. Packett, Clayton R. Paul, Doyle E.
Peaslee, Jane S. Peters, Deborah E. Powell*, Daniel R. Reedy, Herbert G. Reid, Gregory
Richardson, Charles Rowell, Holly Schumacher, Jon M. Shephard*, Hirofumi Shibata,
Timothy Sineath, Otis Singletary*, John T. Smith, Donald Soule, David A. Spaeth*, Edward
F. Stanton*, Marjorie S. Stewart*, Brad Sturgeon, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Lee T. Todd,
Harold H. Traurig*, Mark Vickers, M. Stanley Wall, James H. Wells, Wayne A. Wiegand*,
J. Robert Wills*, Cindy Woolum,

The minutes of the meeting of February l6, l98l, were approved as circulated.

Chairman Schwert made the following remarks:

“The Chairman's remarks will be rather brief. I have a letter
from President Singletary that states, 'I very much appreciate the
expression of support given by the University Senate in its Resolu—
tion of February l6. The University is facing difficult times, and it
is gratifying to know of your united concern for the preservation of
educational opportunities and quality programs. Would you please con—
vey my thanks to the members of the Senate.‘ They are conveyed.

At the last meeting you will recall that Professor Rose dis—
cussed in detail the declining ACT scores of entering freshmen and
the suggestion was made that it would be appropriate for the Senate
to develop a University policy on what we should be doing about pre—
paring unprepared students. The Senate Council made a list of names
of people whom they felt had an active interest in this problem and
all of them agreed to serve on the committee to face this rather
thorny problem. Professor William Plucknett, Department of Chemis—
try, has agreed to act as Chairman. Professors Albert Bacdayan of
Anthropology; Raymond Betts from Developmental Studies; Ray Cox

*Absence explained



from Mathematics; Ward Crowe, Veterinary Science; and Anna Reed
from the Honors Program are committee members. Professor Reed is
also Chairman of the University Committee on Admissions and
Academic Standards. Other members are Professors Louis Swift

from Classical Languages and Literature; Ralph Wiseman from Bio-

- logical Sciences; Ralph is also the Chairman of the Senate Commit—
tee on Teaching, Learning and Advising; and Holly Schumacher, a
senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. I assume these people
would be delighted to hear any points of view you may have on what
the University should do with this difficult problem.

The other item I have is that within the last few days I have
received a letter from Mr. Ed Prichard, who is the Chairman of the
Committee on Higher Education in Kentucky's Future. He sent the
draft of the Subcommittee's report and invited attendance of as
many faculty members that are interested at a meeting which will
be held in Frankfort March 20 to react to the draft. It is docu—
mented very substantially, and we cannot afford to duplicate it
in detail. If you are interested in seeing the draft, we have two
copies in the Senate Council Office, and I invite you to come and
read it there. We have also prepared copies for the members of
the Senate Council, and I'm sure they would share it with you.

My own impression of the draft, and this is purely a personal
impression and not one generated by the Senate Council, is that
the document is generally extraordinarily supportive of our view
of the role of higher education in Kentucky's future.

Considering that the Committee is composed of only a few people
who have a direct tie to higher education and that many of the mem—
bers have other roles, I thought it might turn out to be rather
vocationally oriented. However, it left a very strong message, as
I read it, for the traditional role of higher education in build—
ing citizens. I frankly was very much heartened by it.

A few meetings ago the faculty members on the Board of Trustees
indicated that they were interested in establishing a tradition of
reporting periodically to the Senate. It is now Professor Wagner's

Professor Wagner spoke to the Senate as follows:

"The Board of Trustees is scheduled to meet tomorrow. From the
preliminary information which was circulated about the business, I
think the primary concern of the faculty is the parking fee. The pro—
posal to come before the Board is that parking fees will be increased
but over a two-year period rather than all at one lump. The Board
will take action on that tomorrow.

I thought I might spend a few minutes on the report that George
mentioned from the Council on Higher Education. Actually there were
three subcommittees to address-the critical issues. I might point
out some of the material in the report. I think it might pay as many



faculty as possible to go to the meeting at Kentucky State University
Thoroughbred Room. Subcommittee A submitted a report on educational
policy and programs, first establishing the characteristics of an
educated person in l980. They pointed out that the educational insti—
tution has been asked to assume many of the responsibilities of earlier
organizations such as the school, home, and government. Other issues
that were addressed involved the preparation of students for higher
education. No longer does the high school diploma represent adequate
preparation for higher education, although that is the usual require—
ment. They say higher education is partially responsible for this.

One conclusion is that higher education does not make its expectations
clear to the schools which are preparing students for higher education.
A question which might come from that is: Does this mean specific en-
trance requirements? Is higher education successfully training elemen-
tary and secondary school teachers? Is equal access to higher education
the same as equal opportunity? Should remedial or developmental educa—
tion become a permanent function of higher education? It also addressed
the relationship of education to enhance the total person in comparison
to education for occupational competence. Are we giving adequate oppor-
tunity for the gifted student?

Subcommittee B made two reports. The report on public service
established definitions of research and public service. The report com-
pared three models of universities which have been established: the
English model which is private colleges that follow the pattern estab—
lished in New England; the Scottish model which is allowed to teach use—
ful knowledge to anyone who is qualified to obtain it; our public land
grant institutions were developed in this concept; the German model that
was brought to the United States by Johns Hopkins. The report pointed out
that contribution made by universities through research and development
are not well understood by the public. I think this is generally true.
They pointed out research is underfunded in the state particularly from
the federal level. More cooperation is needed with a 'common market'
concept in education and elimination of duplication with the sharing
of programs. Another report from that subcommittee was on non—traditional
education and professional opportunity. Providing education for those
two groups is becoming a major factor in higher education. In an adden-
dum t0 the report on medical, dental and legal education raises the ques—
tion, 'Does Kentucky need two medical and dental schools and three law
schools?‘ Can we afford to maintain them all? This may also apply to
graduate level programs.

Subcommittee C also had two reports. One was on the financial issue.
The budgets currently rely heavily on the enrollment formulas developed
during the period of growth and good economy during the 50's and 60's.
Now they are being used to some extent to insure accountability, the magic
word right now. They suggested the budget should be developed to recog—
nize the performance in relation to institutional mission. The economic
position of faculty and staff has fallen badly. They are concerned about
the level of tuition. They also commented on the double management of
purchasing, accounting and construction by both the schools and the state

The other subcommittee report was on the faculty. They recognize
that the low morale of the faculty stifles creativity of faculty and leads


 to loss of faculty to other institutions. Concern was expressed that
an aging faculty leads to a low level of young scholars in the aca—
demic area. Concern was expressed over the loyalty of faculty to their
profession rather than to the institution. The Subcommittee really
supported the concept of tenure, but does question the criteria used
for granting tenure which is essentially on scholarly productivity.

Copies of these reports are available in the Senate Council Office.
The meeting is on March 20 at l:00 p.m. at Kentucky State College in
the Thoroughbred Room. Maps are available. This might be an opportunity
to have faculty input to this committee which may have some impact on
our future. Thank you.”

Chairman Schwert said that the Senate Council proposed to react to the reports be—
fore the 20th of March, and the members of the Senate Council would be glad to have any
points raised by members of the Senate.

The Chairman recognized Professor James Kemp for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Kemp, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of the
Proposal to Establish a Department of Telecommunications, College of Communications.
This proposal was circulated to members of the University Senate under date of March 2,
l98l. Professor Kemp said that this was an outgrowth of a letter to the Senate Council
from the President in November. It has gone to the Committee on Organization and Struc—
ture and has been approved by the Senate Council.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. A question was asked concerning
the financial implications to the University. Chairman Schwert replied that the financial
implications to the University were encompassed in the fact that the change was recom—
mended by the President, and the standard operating procedures are that if the administra—
tion says it is administratively feasible, that's where the Senate's interest stops. It
is feasible.

Professor Just was concerned about proliferating departments with chairmen and admin—
istrative assistants. He asked how many faculty would be involved in the whole college
and how many faculty would go into the new department. Dean Drennon replied that the new
department would ultimately be comprised of at least six, including chairman, full-time
faculty and a number of part—time faculty.

Professor Niseman asked if it were originally a School of Communications. Dean
Drennon's reply was that the school concept was abandoned when Arts and Sciences reorgan—
ized several years ago. Professor Niseman then asked if journalism would still remain
as a school. Dean Drennon replied in the affirmative and added that.there would be a
Department of Communications and a Department of Telecommunications. He added that a few
years ago a committee of outside academe studied the situation and the recommendation was
that the program had no future.

Dean Sands asked what the cost would be to have a Department of Telecommunications.
Dean Drennon replied that the separate administrative override would cover the professor
who would be serving as Chairman. He said that a professor was needed anyway, because
they were depending heavily on part—time faculty. A Student Senator wanted to know what
advantage the Department would be for the students. Dean Drennon said that he hoped by
providing more direct leadership in program development it would enhance the students'
opportunity considerably.



The motion to reestablish a Department of Telecommunication passed and reads as


In November President Singletary wrote to the Senate Council
reconmending that a Department of Telecommunications be
reestablished in the College of Communications. Such a de-
partment existed several years ago but was deleted when
departmental structures were eliminated.

An outside committee of evaluators and representatives of
the broadcasting industry have recommended that the program
be strengthened and that a separate department be established.

President Singletary's letter stated that a commitment has
been made to strengthen this area of instruction.

Currently 3l2 students are majoring in the area of Tele—
communications and l5 courses are offered.

The Chairman again recognized Professor James Kemp for a motion from the Senate
Council. Professor Kemp, on behalf of the University Senate Council,recommended a
proposal to rescind the Honor Code, College of Dentistry. This proposal was cir-
culated to members of the University Senate under date of March 2, l981.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Questions were directed to
Dean Packer as to the actual change in substance and the rationale for the change. Dean

Packer replied that during the last two years the faculty had an opportunity of going
through the actual experience and utilization of the Honor Code. The Honor Code Com-
mittee has taken a poll of the faculty and students and has recommended rescinding the
Honor Code. Dean Packer believed the reason was the fact that a great amount of admin—
istrative effort was needed to administer the code. He said the faculty felt comfortable
with the University's Honor Code.

A Senator asked if there were any positive ideas concerning the Honor Code. Dean
Packer felt there were. Neither faculty nor students had negative feelings toward the
code. ”It was just a very laborious system,“ he added. There were at least three
faculty meetings in which a great deal of background research had been done in bringing
both the pros and cons forth and having the system studied. The committee listened and
made their recommendation.

The motion passed unanimously and reads as follows:


The Senate Council has approved a recommendation from the
College of Dentistry and the Academic Council for the Medi-
cal Center that the Honor Code of the College of Dentistry
be rescinded. This Honor Code was approved by the Senate
on January 22, l979. In the future, the College of Dentis-
try will operate under the rules stated in Section VI of
the Rules of the University Senate.


Implementation Date: Fall Semester, l98l.


 Chairman Schwert recognized Professor Albert w. Patrick, Chairman of the Senate
Subcommitee on Resource Allocation.

Professor Patrick spoke to the Senate as follows:

”Most of you have heard that old accountants never die, they just
get out of balance. I hope that we might be able to keep it more or
less in balance today. My remarks are going to be in two segments.
First, a general discussion of the budgeting process at the University
and the preparation of the Annual Financial Report. Secondly, a few
highlights with respect to some of the financial information.

This subcommittee has now been operating for about a year and a
half. It was originally composed of Clint Collins in Education, Sam
Scott in Medicine, Paul Forand in Slavic Languages, Don Leigh in Engi-
neering Mechanics, Don Shannon in Business and Economics and the
Chairman, appointed on a staggered term basis. At the end of the first
year, terms for Clint Collins and Sam Scott expired, and Don Hochstrasser
in Allied Health, and Toni Powell in the Agriculture Library were
appointed as replacements.

The Committee met with an official of the General Assembly, a former
deputy Commissioner of Finance, the Budget Director of the University,
the Controller of the University, one Dean, members of the Board of
Trustees, and numerous faculty members in an attempt to obtain as much
education as possible about the budgeting and reporting process at the
University of Kentucky.

There are four separate corporations affiliated with the University
of Kentucky. They are: University of Kentucky Research Foundation,
University of Kentucky Athletic Association, Fund for Advancement of
Education and Research in University of Kentucky Medical Center, and
Health Care Collections Services, Inc. In addition, there are at least
three other corporations which have some connection with activity at the
University of Kentucky: the new Kentucky Medical Services Foundation, Inc.,
University of Kentucky Credit Union, and the McDowell Cancer Nework.

There are at least Sixteen different funds: Current Unrestricted
Funds (General, Hospital and Clinics, Housing and Dining, Other
Auxiliary Enterprises), Current Restricted Funds, Loan Funds (six funds),
Endowment and Similar Funds, Plant Funds (Unexpended, Renewal and Replace-
ment, Retirement of Indebtedness, Investment in Plant), and Agency Funds.

Only the University of Kentucky will be considered in this initial
report. .

The general charge to this subcommittee was to communicate through
appropriate channels to the Senate financial information encompassing
'where did the money come from' and 'where did it go' and that it was not
being asked to make recommendations to the University concerning resource
allocation. During the year, the Chairman has reported to the Senate
Council and to the Parent Committee.


 Two major documents will be referred to in this report: (l) the
annual audited financial report; (2) the operating budget. The annual
financial report is a historical document, prepared after revenues and
expenditures have been determined. The auditors for l979—8O were Arthur
Anderson and Co. Prior to that, the auditors were Coopers and Lybrand
for many years. The audit is concerned with the various 'fund balances'
and not necessarily with the detail leading to the fund balances.

The accounting chart of accounts used by the University is not
that which is presented in the annual financial report, which according
to generally accepted accounting principles for colleges and universities
must be presented according to major functions such as instruction, re—
search, public service, academic support, institutional support, scholar-
ships and fellowships. The chart of accounts of the University is
generally established on the basis of functional entities. A reclassi—
fication at the end of each year is then made from the chart of accounts
to accomplish the required reporting format in the annual financial re-
port. The University has reclassified various expenditure items in this
‘criss-crossing‘ procedure, and the auditors have taken no special
responsibility for the university's expenditure reclassifications. This
means that detailed information in one annual financial report is not
comparable with the same information in another annual report. The
Budget Office of the University provides the Controller's office with
allocation bases for reporting actual expenditures—-an unusual procedure.
In addition, the Budget Office and the Accounting Office of the Univer-
sity are completely separate and report to different Vice Presidents--
also an unusual procedure.

The budget is a projection, a planning tool, prepared in advance
of operations. Throughout the year, it is in a state of flux, i.e., being
revised or changed, as new facts and conditions warrant. The budget is
prepared by the University administration (budget office), but is not
audited by external CPA's.

Principal attention has been given to the annual financial report,
which permits us to determine how allocations in fact were made, but
in considering this statement, one needs to be aware of the impact of the
budget office in determining the allocations of expenditures yielding the
reported actual results.

Emphasis in this report is given to the Current Unrestricted Gen—
eral Fund because that is the fund from which the principal general
expenditures of the University are made. Other funds have somewhat more
specific purposes than the general operation of the University. All
student fees in the general fund have been pledged for debt service on
plant facilities, but only that portion of the general fund is transferred
as is required to meet the current debt service obligation.

A fundamental notion taught all accounting majors in any higher
education degree program is the preparation of a Performance Report at
the end of each reporting period showing budgeted items in one column
and actual items in a second column with the difference or variance in
a third column. Such a report is impossible to prepare at the University
of Kentucky from the routine public documents because of the different


 classifications used in the budget and those used in the reporting of
the actual data. The end-of—the year budget may be quite different from
the beginning—of—the year budget because of changes made in the budget
during the year. For example, if one looks at the l979-80 Operating
Budget document and the l980—8l Operating Budget document, the figures
for the l979-8O budget are not the same, with no footnote calling the
attention of the reader to this fact and why.

A highly-useful report would appear as follows:

Budget Revised Budget Variance
July l, l979 June 30, l980 Actual Over (under



There are three separate budgets included in the Operating Budget
Document: Summaries, Program Information, Budget Detail. The classifica-
tions in each of these three budgets are different, making it difficult for
an outsider to trace one item in one budget into another budget. A couple
of examples will suffice to illustrate this matter:

Student Health Service expenditures are classified under
Student Services in the operating budget summary; classi—
fied under Medical Center Administration and Support in
the operating budget detail.

Computing Center expenditures are classified under Organized
Research in the operating budget summary; classified under
university-wide central administration expenditures in the
operating budget detail.

Analyzing the annual financial report and budget data has not been an
intellectually difficult job, but it has been a frustrating and time—con—
suming one because of changes in classifications as outlined above.

The Commonwealth Appropriations to the General Fund in l979—80 were
$ll6.8 million, and were $ll9.7 million in l980-8l (budgeted). The
State Appropriations to the General Fund from 1974—75 through 1980-8l
have increased at an annual growth rate of 8.6 percent, whereas the CPI
has increased 9.0 percent annually.

Program Reserves and Nonrecurring Contingency Expenditures were
budgeted in l979—80 in the amount of $6.0 million. These budgeted ex-
penditures cannot be traced into actual expenditures in the audited
financial report.

Through a procedure adopted in 1979—80 of investing monies in over—
night deposits doubled the investment income from l978—79 to 1979—80.

Retirement expenditures and social security expenditures have been
increasing in excess of $l.O million each per year during the last few
years. The Arthur Anderson Summary Memorandum on Accounting Procedures,
Internal Control and Other Matters, dated September, l980, states:



 Because the supplemental retirement benefit payments are
increasing dramatically, this cash method will either
require larger appropriations from the Commonwealth to
fund these retirement obligations, or the allocation of
greater portion of the Commonwealth's appropriation to
fund these retirement obligations. The actuarial pre-
sent value of accumulated benefits under the supplemental
plan totals approximately $43,000,000 at June 30, l980.

We recommend the University obtain annual actuarial
valuations of these supplemental benefits including
the projected future annual cash payments to be made
to these employees during their retirement lives.

The costs of supplemental retirement income benefits paid to retirees
l980 $2,7l8,592
l979 2,5l2,228
The cost is expected to be $5,880,000 in l985.
An increase in faculty salaries of 5 percent will cost a little over
$2.0 million. Fringe benefit costs would add about $600,000 to this


The Commonwealth has provided substantial additional monies to the
University from its Capital Construction Funds (in addition to the appro-

priation to Current Funds).

Material transfers are made from the General Fund each year to cover
debt service, plant renovation and expansion, Hospital and Clinics, and
matching grants. This total amounted to $l3.5 million in l978-79 and
$ll.3 million in l979—80.

The Lexington campus student enrollments have increased from 20,549
in l976—77 to 22,950 in l979-80. The Community College System declined
from l7,l96 in l976-77 to l7,l35 in 1979-80. The total enrollment at
the University remained almost constant, 40,083 in l976-77 and 40,085
in l979—80.

The total University of Kentucky faculty was 1,980 in l972—73 and
1,940 in l979-80 (or a decline of 40 faculty). The Lexington campus
faculty numbered l,640 in l976-77 and l,430 in l979-80.

Material transfers are made annually from the current unrestricted
general fund to plant funds in addition to substantial expenditures
made from current funds for plant facilities. This total was $2l.4
million in l979—80 and $22.7 million in l978-79.

For the three years l976—77, l977-78, and l978-79:

(a) Dollars expended per student was the highest in the
College of Engineering; lowest was College of Arts
and Sciences, with the College of Business and
Economics next lowest.


 (b) The same was true for dollars expended per student

(c) Student hours per faculty was highest for College
of Business and Economics and in 1978-79 lowest for
College of Library Science and College of Social

Students per faculty was highest for College of
Business and Economics and in l978—79 lowest for
College of Architecture followed by College of
Fine Arts and College of Engineering.

Equipment Expenditures are not budgeted, although equipment expendi-
tures are made each year. The question can be fairly raised, why not?

As one ordinarily thinks of a budget, it would contain those expenditures
which are expected to be made.

The University of Kentucky probably has one of the lowest summer
teaching salaries of any major state university in the United States.
For an upper division course, the rate of pay is l0 percent of the base
pay or $2,400, whichever is lower, with a maximum of two courses per-
mitted. The 2/9 allowed on research contracts amounts to 22.2 percent.
Some universities are paying 30 to 33 percent. The state of Texas re—
cently passed a statute to pay the employees' contribution to social
security for all state employees.

Comparative annual statements of financial condition are required
of public profit—making corporations. The University of Kentucky
publishes no comparative annual statements of revenues and expenditures
(an abbreviated comparison appears in the Statement of Current Funds
Revenues, Expenditures and Transfers.)

The Arthur Anderson Summary Memorandum on Accounting Procedures,
Internal Control, and Other Matters, dated September l980 states a
recommendation regarding computing center and data processing opera-


Financial Systems. Gains in productivity could be realized
by replacing the outdated general ledger/financial report-
ing system thereby reducing the manual effort currently
required and improving the timeliness of accounting/
financial information.

Furthermore, we believe the University should develop an
integrated student billing and accounts receivable system
to provide improvements in the timely reporting and collec-
tion of student accounts receivable balances.

Other specific recommendations were also made.

A uniform accounting classification of expenditures for each college
should be developed. For example, if College ”Administration" is an
appropriate classification, then expenditures for each college should
include 'Administration' as a classification.


 The Commonwealth appropriation budgeted for current funds was re—
duced by $ll.2 million about two weeks into the l980—8l year. This left
an increase in the state appropriation in l980—8l of about $3.0 million
over l979—80. This $ll.2 million decrease from the original budget was
made up by transferring $5,500,000 from Capital Construction Funds
(Plant Funds) increasing budgeted revenues by $l.0 million which were
not originally budgeted, and by reducing operating expenditures by
$4.7 million. Academic Affairs was reduced l.3 percent, the Medical
Center and Hospital was reduced 0.7 percent, Debt Service was reduced
$547.4 thousand, among others.

On June 30, l968 the General Fund Balance of the University was
$8 million. On June 30, l980 the General Fund Balance was $l8.5
million dollars. What we mean here by the fund balanCe is the excess
of receipts over expenditures. Thank you for your attention and time.
I might attempt to answer some questions.”

In the question and answer period which followed Professor Gesund said that he won—
dered about the figures in the Schedule X for the College of Engineering. He stated
the College had roughly between 80 and 90 faculty members and around l700 students. He
said that something was wrong with the figures. Professor Patrick replied that the
committee could have erred, but their figures had come from sources in the University.

Professor Just asked why certain colleges had been skipped such as Colleges of
Medicine and Dentistry. Professor Shannon stated that t