xt7jdf6k3w43 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7jdf6k3w43/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1988-09-19  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, September 19, 1988 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, September 19, 1988 1988 1988-09-19 2020 true xt7jdf6k3w43 section xt7jdf6k3w43 \




1' :\ a"; ,‘ ,1 v]
to» / 9%,er I

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
September 19, 1988, at 3:00 p.m. in ROOM 115 of the Nursing Building
(COH/HSLC . PLEASE NOTE: The Nursing Building is across Rose Street
from the University Hospital and is connected with the Medical Plaza.
Room 115 is at the north end of the building.

Address by President David Roselle.
Introduction of Senate Officers and Committee Chairs.
Chairman‘s Announcements and Remarks.

Academic Ombudsman's Report for the 1987-88 Academic Year:
Professor William Fortune.

Introduction of new Academic Ombudsman: Professor William Moody.

Randall Dahl

If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact Ms. Martha
Sutton (7-7155) in advance. Thank you.




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
September l9, l988, in room ll5 of the Health Sciences Building.

Loys Mather, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Troy Abner, James L. Applegate*, Ronald Atwood*,
Michael Baer*, David Bingham*, William H. Blackburn*, Peter P. Bosomworth,
Glen Buckner*, Keith Byers, Rutheford B Campbell, Jr., Mary Sue Coleman*,
Audrey L. Companion, Frederick Danner, Joseph Elias*, Charles W. Ellinger,
Michael Fraley, James Freeman*, Craig Friedman*, Richard W. Furst, Thomas C.
Gray, John R. Groves, Pat Hart*, Eric Headley, Mehran Jahed, John Just*,
Kenneth K. Kubota, William B. Lacy, Gerald Lemons, Linda Levstik*, Paul
Mandelstam*, James R. Marsden*, George Mitchell, David A. Nash*, Arthur J.
Nonneman*, Donell Nunez*, William N. O'Connon*, Dennis T. Officer, Deborah E.
Powell, Mary Ann Quarles, Al Slusher, Glen R. Van Loon, Steven Weisenburger,
Charles T. Wethington and H. David Wilson*.

Chairman Mather welcomed the members of the Senate and guests. He said
that each year the Senate invites the President of the University, who is also
President of the Senate, to address the Senate at its first meeting of the
academic year. This year is no exception. What is different this year,
however, is the fact that the University community was specifically invited to
attend. Those who were here for the President's address last year will recall
that he addressed the Senate, then remained for an extended period of time to
respond to questions from the audience. Since it was such an interesting and
informative session, the Senate Council asked the President whether he would
concur in the Council extending an invitation this year to all members of the
University community to attend, and he agreed.

In his remarks last year in introducing the President, William Lyons
expressed his pleasure in the President's outstanding effort to communicate
with the faculty. From what Chairman Mather has observed, the President has
demonstrated in many ways his desire to keep the lines of communication open
between the administration and the faculty. The Chairman added that after the
President's first year in office he has generated considerable excitement
around the campus and the state about his vision for the University, not only
what it can become as an institution but also what it can contribute to the
Commonwealth as the state's comprehensive, land-grant university. Chairman
Mather said it was a great pleasure to welcome the President on behalf of the
University Senate and the University community.

President Roselle's remarks follow:

Thank you. I have enjoyed the first year on campus and I have
enjoyed particularly the opportunity to interact with the officers of
the Faculty Senate. One thing the Senate officers and I have done
over the past year is to have breakfast together every month and talk
about various agenda items, particularly Senate agenda items. I
encourage all of you to keep such information as well as programmatic

*Absence explained.


 information coming to me. It is important for me to understand your
points of view about various issues. In a very real sense my job is
marketing the institution's position, and it is important that I
understand your programs and your interests so that I can accurately
describe them in the conversations that I have around the state.

I hope all of you had a good summer. I'm glad you are back, and
I'm glad our students are here and that all of them have now found
beds. We are generally pleased with the response we have had with
our recruitment efforts. UK is showing quantitative growth primarily
in the Community College System. In Community Colleges last year
there was an enrollment gain of about nine percent. In the last
three years the Community College system has grown by more than a
third. This year's enrollment in the Community Colleges is more than
32,000 students. The overall University enrollment is between
55,000-56,000 students. Of special importance to the Lexington
campus is that this year, for the first time, the University of
Kentucky topped 4,000 graduate students.

Minority enrollment at the University of Kentucky is also an
important issue. This year UK showed an 8 percent increase in
minority enrollment. The black freshman class at the University is
about 5 percent of the entering freshman classes. We have made
progress toward our goal of having UK's black student population be
about the same as the black population of Kentucky.

The current Freshman class may be the most well qualified class
ever to enter UK. ACT scores are up and are substantially above the
national average. This year the percentage of students accepting our
offer of admission increased. We hope that this indicates that our
applicants sense opportunity at UK. There are l7 national merit
finalists as members of our freshman class and this brings to 59 the
national merit finalists enrolled at UK.

Applications for admissions at this University are healthy.
Since l984, applications have increased 50 percent and this year we
have between ll,000 and l2,000 applications for the freshman class.
We have also imposed an application fee for the University of
Kentucky and the income thus obtained will be used to recruit
additional well qualified applicants.

Five years ago UK spent $70,000 annually on merit scholarships.
This year, UK has committed more than $l million, and we recognize
that this amount is still inadequate. Of special note to under—
graduate students is the new University studies program. I have had
earlier experience with bringing about such curricular revision and I
know that it is a difficult, time-consuming task. I believe that all
UK Faculty and administrators should be grateful to Professor Swift
and his colleagues for their good work in defining the components of
the University Studies Program.

On the subject of research, we recognize that sponsored projects
alone are not a uniformly good measure of faculty scholarship. None—
theless, research grants provide a quantifiable comparison of certain


 kinds of activity. This year the faculty set a new record for the
University of Kentucky in sponsored projects, more than $54 million.
The increase from last year is about nine percent.

Sponsored support is a very important source of income to UK and
we want to increase the amount of such support. Simply put, such
support makes things possible at the institution that would not
otherwise be possible. For example, sponsored support makes avail-
able student employment opportunities and equipment and it allows us
-to increase the University's research agenda. We appreciate the hard
work of the faculty in attracting such support. Moreover, we have
repositioned UK's administration so as to be able to address better
the administration of sponsored research projects. Our goal is to
provide a supportive environment for faculty as they carry out
sponsored research projects.

Many of our faculty received individual honors during the past
year, and we take pride in such recognitions. I think without doubt
the outstanding honor earned this last year was the election of Dr.
Robert Shepherd to membership in the National Academy of Sciences.
He is the first UK faculty member to be so honored, and he is the
first Kentucky resident to ever be so honored.

Earlier this year, UK was part of an effort to recruit the
Asphalt Institute to Lexington. This successful effort was based
upon the Asphalt Institute's desire to be associated with UK and
particularly with the faculty of the Transportation Center and the
Department of Civil Engineering. The Asphalt Institute has as member
institutions most of the large oil companies and their decision to
relocate from suburban Washington, D.C. to Lexington was influenced
by the centrality and beauty of Lexington‘s location.

During the past year, UK has initiated new requests with the
Federal Government. The largest such effort is to obtain for the
University of Kentucky additional funding in support of programs in
technology transfer. Our efforts have received good support from
Senator Ford and other members of the Kentucky Congressional dele-
gation and we are optimistic that UK will receive financial

During the past year UK has added additional computational
support. There will be more developments in that general arena as
research projects and instruction become more technology dependent.
I want to call special attention to the attractive increase in large
scale computing under the leadership of John Connally and with the
support of the facilities now available in the Computing Center.

I encourage all faculty to investigate the growing importance of
technology to all three of our missions. We want the faculty to be
active participants in defining appropriate technology and appropri-
ate uses of technology and we invite you and your colleagues to take
advantage of the facilities that are now present and help us deter—
mine where we go next with technology.


 This was an active year in the area of fringe benefits. We were
pleased to be able to provide tuition assistance for full-time
employees at the University of Kentucky. The retirement plan was
revised so as to incorporate two other investment plan carriers. We
also revised the sick-leave policy. In all, UK made progress in the
provision of fringe benefits.

Looking back, the past year was one of considerable success.
Our major disappointment was we did not gain adequate finances to
fully address the need for faculty and staff salary increases. 0n
the other hand, we have gained recognition of the need, and I am
hopeful that we will be able to make real progress in the years ahead.

In our conversations about budgets we always, and I mean always,
highlight that the first priority is faculty and staff salaries. He
also point out that the solution to the salary problem is affordable
to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. We will work very hard in the
coming year to gain recognition of the need to address the issue of
faculty and staff salaries.

There are other pressing budgetary needs: health insurance,
operating needs of academic departments, equipment needs and certain
infrastructure needs. For example, we need to be able to improve the
cooling plant and extend steam lines. These issues are nearly
invisible but are very important.

I remain optimistic that the governmental leaders will see fit
to alleviate our budget problems. I would encourage you to be
optimistic, as well. I would also encourage you to recognize that
these decision makers will be influenced by how well we carry out our
missions and how well we are able to project UK to the citizens of
the Commonwealth. Thus, for example, it really is important that the
person who answers the phone properly represents the University of
Kentucky. It really is important that when our faculty walk into
their classrooms that they do it with a sense of responsibility, with
a sense of purpose, and with the goal of offering their students the
best possible education. It really is important that we take pride
in the appearance of our campus, that we seek out opportunities for
our students and other constituents, and that we demonstrate qualita—
tive improvement in our curriculum and research programs. How well
we interact with our publics and the pride we evidence in UK is
important to our being able to gain the support needed to make
improvements in our academic programs.

In spite of the budget problems, we have undertaken some
important new initiatives at UK. These new initiatives are based
upon the budgetary strategy of having UK become a place where it is
more easily possible to carry out scholarship. Thus, we funded major
improvements in the library budget and in the salaries paid to
librarians. We also funded increases in graduate assistantship
stipends, computing, departmental operating budgets, Singletary
scholarships, and dissertation year fellowships.


 We also funded programs for minority faculty recruitment and
fellowships for minority students. I urge your consideration of ways
that you can help UK recruit additional minority faculty and stu—
dents. For example, when you attend professional meetings this year,
do so with the purpose in mind that you represent an affirmative
action employer. Report to your department chairman if you observe a
minority faculty member or graduate student that UK might want to

As you all know, the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) has announced an inquiry into a wrongdoing alleged to have
taken place in the University of Kentucky Basketball program. Nhen
allegations are made about an NCAA member institution, it is that
institution's responsibility to self-investigate.

UK hired an independent attorney and initiated an investigation
of the basketball program. Throughout the investigation, the
University has avoided speculation about outcomes of the investiga—
tion. Rest assured that we will vigorously defend our program and
our personnel against any allegation that is not substantiated by the
investigation. On the other hand, if any wrongdoing is judged to
have occurred, we will accept responsibility.

The UK investigation is different in its nature than is
typical. For example, you may have seen the news account of the
allegations made against the basketball program at the University of
Kansas. The article indicated that the investigation had been going
on for l8 months. It was a quiet investigation to determine what
allegations would be made about the program. By contrast, we at UK
have not had the luxury of a quiet investigation. Our story was
broken in the newspapers before there was any chance to investigate.
The l8 month investigation at the University of Kansas is quite long
compared to the five months that the investigation has been going on
at the University of Kentucky. However, the five month investigation
at the University of Kentucky, since we get it for breakfast each
morning, seems like a very long time indeed.

We are quite anxious to draw the NCAA matter to a conclusion.
We hope to receive soon whatever remaining allegations are to be be
made from the National Collegiate Athletic Association. You will
remember that the NCAA promised about 50 days ago that in approxi-
mately 30 days, we would receive additional allegations. We do look
forward to receiving more allegations so that we can complete our

Before concluding, I want to talk about some futures and goals
for the University of Kentucky. To begin with, our overarching goal
for UK is to have it be one of the leaders in public higher education
in the country. The administrative construct of the University,
being a state university and a land grant university and having 14
community colleges as well as the support UK enjoys around the state,
lead me to believe the goal is not an unreasonable one. To attain
it, we must provide a quality place for faculty, staff and students
where they can accomplish their programs of service, instruction and


 scholarships. That means library, computing, equipment, facilities,
salaries and a lot of other related issues.

We have made some major improvements in the Computing Center,
hardware and software, and communications. We have benefited from
the $20 million equipment bond issue for equipment. Indeed, through
educational discounts, cost sharing on grants, etc., our faculty have
leveraged the support provided by the bond issue into about $35
million worth of new equipment.

We will continue to make improvements in the library. We will
try to continue to improve operating budgets for academic depart—
ments. We will be the kind of institution where individual faculty
members who want to initiate a new program of inquiry are able to
find support. My experience in higher education has caused me to
believe that investments in faculty initiatives pay very rich
dividends and we will attempt to provide such support.

We will endeavor to continue the improvement in the quality of
our student body. Part of that is recruitment.‘ But our mission
requires us to provide support for improvements in education at all
levels in Kentucky. To be sure, UK has obligations to the schools of
Kentucky, but our support also extends to the regional universities
and to the non-state supported colleges. We must recognize that
graduates of all of these institutions enroll at UK and that it is
thus important to UK that they have had good educational

UK will be an institution that is open and friendly to all
persons regardless of race, color or creed.

Good graduate programs go hand in hand with the further
development of our research programs at the University. We will
endeavor to enhance the amount of funding and scope of graduate
education and research. Our faculty have the very important
responsibility to assist in this effort by securing extramural
support for a portion of the University's research program and
graduate student stipends.

Finally, we must think about strategies to retain our best
faculty members and be able to recruit additional good faculty
members at the University of Kentucky. Universities are people—
dependent and if we are able to retain and recruit excellent faculty,
the goal of leadership in public higher education is attainable for
the University of Kentucky.

In a question and answer period following President Roselle's remarks
Professor Jo Ann Rogers (Library and Information Science) asked a question
concerning something that was included in a memorandum dated April 26, 1988,
from Mr. Carter to the Chancellors which relates to the incentive that could
be used for supplements for faculty salaries or a number of other purposes.
First of all, her question related to the objective of the initiative, second
to the procedure and thirdly to the evaluation of the program. She added that
the faculty did not have much information about what the program entails. Her


 understanding is that there would be a grant over a three-year period approxi-
mately a million dollars a year to be allocated in terms of $2500 per faculty
member. Her first question related to the number of people who are to get the
award which she thought would be around 20 percent of the faculty. She said
the stated objective was to improve the morale of the faculty. She wanted to
know about the 80 percent who apparently would not participate in the three
million dollar allocation. Her second question related to the criteria and
procedure. The criteria as outlined in the memo said that the grants would be
based on demonstrated excellence or strong potential for excellence in any one
or more of teaching, research and service. The procedure in terms of select—
ing the top 20 percent of faculty does not mention peer review at the
department level, college level, area discipline level, but does mention two
faculty groups at the administrative level. Professor Rogers asked the
President if he thought the criteria and procedures are adequate to identify
the 20 percent of the selected faculty. Her third question related to the
evaluation of the program. She said that in the memo from Mr. Carter to the
Chancellors the directive was that the program which was to be administered
sector by sector would in fact be evaluated but the date mentioned for the
evaluation is October l989, which, of course, would be sometime after the
fiscal year in July. She wanted to know if it would be possible to evaluate
the program on the basis of its objectives prior to its second annual

The President responded as follows:

The University was able to come up with some non-recurring
monies and desired to spend that money in direct support of the
faculty of the University. We were aware of the problems that we
knew would have to be addressed in the department. Faculty retention
was one such issue. Had it not been a difficult year for salaries, I
would have held out for a requirement that these particular dollars
were to be used for programmatic support and not for salary
supplements. But it has been a difficult year for salaries and it
was thus decided to not so restrict the grants.

Please be aware that I don‘t believe the deserving faculty at
the University of Kentucky comprise only 20 percent of the faculty.
And we hope to be able to make further grants of discretionary money
for additional members of the faculty. Do know that I have had many
letters about how people intend to use their money and I am impressed
that the initial investment may pay large dividends. As far as
criteria are concerned, I believe that questions such as 'Can this be
given to people in support of their teaching programs?‘ should be
answered by, 'It can if that is what is important to the furtherance
to your overall program in your department or college.I The idea is
to allow academic units the opportunity to make a grant to those
colleagues whose programs (be they service, instruction or research)
are deemed to have sufficient promise. This year, of course, the
situation related to salaries caused faculty retention to also be a

As far as evaluation goes, we have discussed ways to evaluate
the program. One way is to receive from members of the faculty who
have been recipients of the grant some indication of what they did
and how their programs were able to grow.


 Professor Andy Grimes (Business and Economics) wanted to know the
anticipated date for the program. President Roselle responded that it was
started July 1. The President did not attempt to detail any program to the
people but has left it to the Chancellors and Deans to carry out the

Professor Richard Labrecque (Education) felt the question was pressing the
administration to think more in terms of the unintended consequences of the
programs proposed. He said that any time goals were proposed they might be
attained, but there may also be results of things one does not want. He added
that in evaluations one might not only want to know what to do for a particu—
lar program but what did the program do for faculty morale across the board
because every faculty member has children or many people do.

Professor Hans Gesund (Engineering) wanted to know how the imposition of
application fees would affect minority students. The President responded
there is a subsidiary program to minimize that impact. The President asked
Associate Vice Chancellor Joseph Fink to respond. Professor Fink stated there
was a procedure to exempt from payment anyone who reached certain criteria
like exemption from the feee paid to ACT. The University would use the exact
same criteria to exempt from paying the application fee for those students for
whom the fee would be burdensome. President Roselle said that the University
did not want to discourage applications from anyone for economic reasons.
Professor Fink said the application fee would be for people applying for
admission for Fall l989. The fee is $l5.00, a non—refundable application
processing fee.

Chairman Mather said that this had been a useful exchange and thanked
President Roselle for his remarks. The Senate applauded the President.

Chairman Mather proposed postponement of approval of the Minutes of the
meeting of April 25, l988, until October because most Senators received their
copies that morning. The Chair recognized Professor Don Leigh (Engineering)
who read the following Resolution on Professor William Lyons, Chairman of the
University Senate Council, l987—88:

It is customary at the first Senate meeting of the academic year
to recognize the outgoing Chairman of the Senate Council. William E.
Lyons brought to the job of presiding over the Senate and chairing
the Senate Council, a rare combination of dedication, profession—
alism, and good humor.

Bill's tenure of office was especially interesting in that it
coincided with the first year of the new President of the
University. In early meetings between President Roselle and Chairman
Lyons it was decided, that as one means of fostering closer ties with
the faculty, a subset of the Senate Council would have breakfast with
the President once a month. This has been going on for the past year
and is important not only in terms of the agenda items which are
discussed, but perhaps more importantly, for the rapport which has
been established between the President and the Senate Council.

The breakfasts of the full Senate Council were continued this
past year —- invited guests included groups of deans and the local


 legislative delegation. The year saw the last steps in preparation
for the implementation of the University Studies Program this Fall.
During the year the reorganizations of the College of Allied Health
Professions and the College of Dentistry came before the Senate, as
well as proposals for a Ph.D. in Public Administration and a B.A. in
Arts Administration. As you may recall, a Faculty Poll was con—
ducted. On April 14 an Honors Day convocation was held. Toward the
end of Bill‘s term he had to handle the Senate Council response to
the unfortunate remarks of a member of the Board of trustees.

The year was also interesting because it coincided with the
first year of a new Governor who proposed a state budget which was
nonsupportive of higher education. Bill Lyons was effective in
marshalling a flow of letters concerning higher education and the
budget to members of the general assembly. He was also effective in
encouraging attendance at the rally sponsored by the Advocates for
Higher Education in Frankfort in February.

Bill's professional expertise in state and local government, and
his experience in local government, were additional dimensions of his
background which enhanced his chairmanship of the Senate Council and
the Senate. Professor Lyons, please accept our sincere thanks for
your leadership and service to the University of Kentucky.

Professor Lyons was given a warm round of applause.

The Chair then recognized Professor John Piecoro (Pharmacy) for a
Memorial Resolution.


Howard Hopkins 1910-1988

On July 23, 1988 the University of Kentucky, and especially the
College of Pharmacy, lost a valued professional colleague and friend
-— Dr. Howard Hopkins.

Dr. Hopkins retired as associate dean of instruction and
professor of phannacy in 1976 after l8 years with the College.
During his years of service, he demonstrated his dedication, ability
and wisdom as a teacher, counselor, and administrator.

Dr. Hopkins was born in Brownsburg, Indiana on December l2,
l9l0. In l930 he began his post-secondary education at Evansville
College, eventually transferring to Butler University. He continued
his education at Indiana University Extension from l932-l936.

Working his way through college, he completed his 8.8. degree in
pharmacy from Purdue University in 11938 and his M.S. degree from the
University of Nebraska in 1940.

In l94l he became dean of the College of Pharmacy at Ferris
State College, Big Rapids, Michigan. In 1944 he joined the
Smith—Dorsey division of the Wander Company in Lincoln, Nebraska, as
a research pharmacist. He rose to the position of plant manager and


 finally to associate director of pharmaceutical development. During
his career with the pharmaceutical industry, he was one of the
researchers involved in developing the technology of enclosing one
table within another to assure chemical stability of different
ingredients and to provide for a delayed second dose of medication.
In 1957 he returned to academe and obtained a Ph.D. at the University
of Nebraska in 1959. Later that same year he joined the faculty at
the University of Kentucky.

Dr. Hopkins was a registered pharmacist in Indiana and Kentucky
and an active member of his professional societies. For many years,
he was advisor to Alpha Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Chi. He also
represented the College as a delegate to the United States
Pharmacopeial Convention, the group responsible for creating the
U.S.P., which sets forth legal standards for the quality of drug
substances and drug products in the United States.

He served on numerous University committees including the Rules
Committee, the Library Committee, the University Senate, the Academic
Council of the Medical Center and the Associate Deans Council. In
addition, Dr. Hopkins was one of the original members of the
University's Council on Aging and served in that capacity after his
retirement. Active in the community, he served as member of the
Board of Directors of the UK Credit Union and as captain of the
United Way Planning Board for many years.

Dr. Hopkins was an ardent fisherman and gardener. His hobby was
collecting and repairing unusual watches and clocks. Following
retirement, he moved to Florida where he resided until his death.

Upon his retirement, a colleague noted, "Dr. Howard Hopkins'
empathy for the youth of our time, couples with his mature outlook,
brought a sense of stability and calmness to a sometime frantic
world. His colleagues and friends are sad that there are some who
will not come under his tutelage. He will remain with us as an
inspiration and an example for those in our profession." Time cannot
erase the influence of his work in the College and in the profession
of pharmacy across the country.

Chairman Mather asked the Senate to rise in a moment of silent tribute.

The Chair then introduced members of the Senate Council who are: Charles
Ambrose, Medicine; James Applegate, Communications; Donald Leigh, Engineering;
James Wells, Arts and Sciences; Mike Ram, Medicine; Paul Eakin, Arts and
Sciences; Carolyn Bratt, Law; Jo Ann Rogers, Library and Information Science;
Raymond Betts, Honors Program, Ex—officio, member of the Trustees; William
Lyons, Arts and Sciences; James Rose, Ex-officio, President of the Student
Government; Mary Sue Coleman, Medicine, Ex-officio, member of the Trustees;
Lisa King and Mehran Jahed, Student Government representatives. These members
of the Senate Council were given a warm applause.

The Chair then recognized Randall Dahl, University Registrar and Secretary
of the University Senate; Martha Sutton, Recording Secretary; Frankie
Garrison, Ombudsman's Office, Sergeant-At-Arms; Susan Wilson, Registrar's


 Office, Sergeant—At-Arms; Gifford Blyton, Professor Emeritus and
Paliamentarian; and special recognition to Celinda Todd, Administrative
Assistant to the Senate Council.

Chairman Mather commented as follows:

Let me take a few moments to let you know of some things which
are in the works, some things which have occurred recently and some
things which will be h