xt7rv11vj11x https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7rv11vj11x/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1988-12-05  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, December 5, 1988 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, December 5, 1988 1988 1988-12-05 2020 true xt7rv11vj11x section xt7rv11vj11x LHNVERSHY OF KENTUCKY



Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
December 5, 1988, at 3:00 p.m. in ROOM 115 of the Nursing Building
(CON/HSLC). Room 115 is at the north end of the building.

Minutes, 14 November 1988.

Presentation by Vice President Edward Carter on the UK budget
and an overview of the strategic planning process.


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,
December 5, l988, in Room ll5 of the College of Nursing/Health Sciences

Loys L. Mather, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Troy Abner*, David Allen*, Richard Angelo*, James L.
Applegate*, Raymond F. Betts*, David Bingham, William H. Blackburn*, Glenn C.
Blomquist*, Darla Botkin, Earl Bowen, Douglas Boyd, Carolyn S. Bratt*, Glen
Buckner, Keith Byers, Roger Calantone*, Joan C. Callahan, Rutheford 8
Campbell, Jr., Tim Cansler, Jordan L. Cohen*, Mary Sue Coleman*, Clifford J.
Cremers*, Marcus Dillon, David S. Durant, Jr.*, Mary Ellen Edmondson*, Ronald
D. Eller*, Charles N. Ellinger, Walter C. Foreman*, Michael Fraley, James
Freeman*, Richard N. Furst, Art Gallaher, Jr., Thomas C. Gray, Pat Hart, Eric
Headley, Ronald Hoover, Alfred S. L. Hu, Craig L. Infanger*, Malcolm E.
Jewell*, David C. Johnson*, John J. Just, Lisa King*, Kenneth K. Kubota, James
M. Kuder*, Gerald Lemons, Thomas Lindlof*, C. Oran Little, Paul Mandelstam*,
James R. Marsden, Peggy Meszaros*, Ernest Middleton*, George Mitchell, Roy
Moore*, David A. Nash*, Donell Nunez, Dennis T. Officer*, John J. Piecoro,
Jr.*, Deborah E. Powell*, Mary Ann Quarles, Daniel R. Reedy, Thomas C.
Robinson, James Rose, David P. Roselle*, Edgar L. Sagan, Michael C. Shannon*,
Steven J. Skinner*, Manuel Tipgos*, James H. Hells, Charles T. Wethington,
Carolyn A. Nilliams*, Eugene Williams, Emery A. Wilson, M. David Wilson*, and
Kenneth Yeargan*.

The Chair made the following announcements:

First, it is that time of year again when we are beginning the
search for a University Ombudsman. The Search Comnittee is being
appointed, and I am mentioning this to you to alert you to a notice
you will be receiving in early January soliciting your nominations
for the University Ombudsman. We encourage you to begin thinking
about nominations. As you know, the incumbent Ombudsman is eligible
for reelection.

Second, we are in the process of electing a faculty
representative on the Board of Trustees. We have completed the first
nomination ballot. You should be receiving your first election
ballot early in the spring semester. Persons who will appear on that
ballot are as follows: Ray Betts, College of Arts and Sciences;
Wilbur Frye, College of Agriculture; Bill Lyons, College of Arts and
Sciences; Jo Ann Rogers, College of Library and Information Science;
Marcus McEllistrem, College of Arts and Sciences and William Moody,
College of Agriculture. I would like to urge each of you as
representatives of faculty units to encourage your colleagues to
participate in the next round of the election. The nomination
ballot received a very low faculty turnout. Of the ballots mailed
out 30% of them were returned. I would certainly hope that in the
first election ballot we will do much better than that. I simply ask

*Absence explained.


 for your help in spreading the word to your colleagues and
encouraging them to participate.

. Finally, an announcement regarding the Senate Holiday Party
which we discussed at the last meeting of the Senate. It will be
held a week from tomorrow, Tuesday, December 13, in the King Alumni
House from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. If you have not yet received your
announcement, it should be arriving in your mail shortly. I
anticipate that we will have a fairly good turnout from the Trustees
at this party. It provides a good time for members of the Senate and
representatives of the administration to meet and it is also a good
time to get better acquainted with members of the Board of Trustees.
I encourage your participation in that event.

As a reminder, the next meeting of the Senate will be on Monday,
February 13.

The Chair said that "the item" on the agenda was Vice President Ed
Carter. Chairman Mather had discussions with him concerning the budget
and also concerning the strategic planning process which the University
is currently involved in, and had asked him to come to the Senate to
discuss both of these, and he agreed to do that.

The Chair recognized Vice President Carter who made the following

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am always delighted to respond to the

Chairman's request to come and share infonnation with you. I did ask
him what else was on the agenda, and when he said I was it, that does
give me a little pause, but we will make the most of it.

As you know, it is that time of the year we are beginning two
things. One is the work at the Chancellor‘s level on the 1989—90
operating budget and as the Chairman mentioned, we are also in the
early phases of the planning process for l990-92. As the old saying
goes, "Time flies when you are having fun." It seems like we just
finished the last one and here we are ready to start another one.

A quick update, and maybe one you don‘t need in terms of the
current budget. All of you know we are living this year with what
can best be termed a rather tight budget and very difficult times.
The 2 percent salary increase which took place in July leaves us, as
you are well aware, in a very poor competitive position with faculty
and staff salaries. You also are well aware that the President has
high on his agenda attempting to improve the conditions of the
faculty in two ways, using two items much discussed and written about
in the grant programs which he had hopes of improving the working
conditions of at least some of the faculty, and, the current expense
supplementation program which was targeted for the academic units.
One of my concerns over the years is what has happened to the
non—people support of the academic program, really over the last
twenty years for those of you who have been around that long. It
started in the late 60's and they have suffered all the way through


 this twenty year period. Much of it, in fact, coming by as a result
of the priority placed by President Singletary on faculty salaries.

President Roselle wanted to try to do both as best he could and
we started doing this in the situation where there would be no salary
increases and through the actions of the legislature we did end up
with a 2 percent increase.

We also looked at and supported both the computing operation and
the library in this current year. I am sure all of you are acutely
aware we still have serious funding problems in every facet of
University operations that can be characterized as having
insufficient amount of funds to deal with the needs of your program.

There is some good news, at least I hope it is good news,
compared to where we have been in the last several years. If you
read the paper yesterday, there was a comment in the Herald Leader by
Kevin Hable saying that the revenue looks like it is on target for
this year and that we will not be faced with the budget cuts in the
first year's biennial for the current fiscal year. That is good news
for those of us in the budget business. I am sure it is good news
for those of you on the receiving end of the budget business.

Let me give you at this point in the process a first cut look at
where we are starting for the l989-90 budget. We have a long way to
go, but you can see the resources we have available. [The chart is
attached at the end of the Hinutes.]

Let me talk just a minute about the health insurance piece. All
of you have been reading about Governor Wilkinson's problems with the
State Health Insurance Program. All of you know what this
institution has been going through in the past several years in
health insurance. We are a self-rated operation. We are not part of
the State Health Insurance Program. We are not part of anybody's
program. It is a University of Kentucky employee health program. We
are having an estimate of some l5% increase assuming we would attempt
to keep up with cost increases. Some of the estimates coming out of
the corporate world across the country are 40% increases. One of the
folks at a staff meeting this morning relayed that some of the Blue
Cross plans in this state are coming out in the range of 125%
increase. We are talking a million dollars going for cost increase.

Let me put this challenge to you, Mr. Chainnan, and to the
faculty. If anybody has ideas on anything to help our own University
of Kentucky community in terms of health insurance, please share them
with the chairman of the committee or with anybody else. We have a
committee chaired by T. Lynn Williamson that is trying to get indepth
education on health insurance and the problems and some of the
solutions. I don't know that they are going to find many solutions.
I don't know what is going to happen to health insurance. That is a
growing problem in this country. I don‘t see any change in it in the
near future.


 The faculty salary increase will not correct the $5,000 gap that
we see occurring in tenns of the average faculty salary in relation
to benchmark salaries. We think that is about where we are going to
be when the numbers come in for this year. A five percent increase
ought to keep us about even based on what has been going on around us
in the past several years. Hopefully, we won't fall any further
behind but if that is where everything comes down it also has a point
to represent much improvement in that particular situation.

The budget, at least as it stands, deals with our continuing
library book problem. It does indeed deal with the backlog of
current expense needs throughout the institution of the problem in
the grant program. It will make some impact in that area. The
computing needs of an academic enterprise continue to grow as
technology changes, as the world evolves into the information age.
Rataher than being behind, we probably ought to be on the cutting
edge of computing in terms of the information flow as an academic
institution in trying to get their enrollment up. This doesn't do
much in tenns of moving us out of that hole and it certainly doesn't
do anything under the current structure to deal with the continuing
equipment problems at this Institution. That is not something to be
dealt with in the end. It is an ongoing problem and as the
Chancellors have indicated we have a continuing and growing problem
in terms of instruction equipment, nor does it do anything in terms
of program improvement or program enhancement.

The other piece of this, you need to understand, we are still

relying in this particular situation with some $4 million flow from
the University Hospital and the Athletic Association in terms of the
ongoing support of the programs at this Institution.

Obviously, with the mismatch between revenues and expenditures,
we have to look at some alternatives and as I have indicated before,
budget making really is not very complicated. You either increase
the revenue or you decrease expenditures to make it balance. During
the next couple of months we will be looking with the Chancellors and
the Vice Presidents at all of those alternatives.

To say we are about to embark upon the planning process in
developing the biennial budget for l990-92, I would remind you that
in terms of the Chairman's mention of the strategic planning process,
we had in place most of the strategic directions that had come out of
the process last time. Let me remind you what those were. I think
there is not much question that we have done administratively a very
poor job of communicating those. Some of my close faculty here tells
the story as I raised the issue with them this morning as how many of
them can count the strategic directions that we used as a driving
force of the institution. Nobody was willing to talk about the ones
they had committed to memory. I went through those with this group,
and they do, in fact, represent the broad direction that the
President has seen the institution moving in. He formulated the
biennial budget request around this planning process. We will look
at these again, revise them, refine them, change them, whatever needs
to be done in order to get everybody to the level of understanding


 regarding the strategic direction of the institution. These
cuteacross sectors of the Community Colleges, Medical Center and
Lexington Campus, but the program at the Comnunity College System
would continue to provide access to all Kentuckians interested in
higher education in the state, meaning very simply that if one wanted
to go to college there would be a place provided in the Community
College System. The only problem with that particular strategic
direction in many of Dr. Nethington's operations now is that there is
not space to handle some 32,000 to 33,000 students that are now
enrolled in that system.

The University will strive to provide quality educational
experience at the undergraduate level. What does that mean? It
means that selective admissions obviously ought to bring with it a
quality of undergraduate instruction that is befitting the quality of
the undergraduate students. That runs in terms of biennial requests
everything from faculty salaries to graduate students stipends, the
numbers of full-time positions versus part—time, all of that,
adequate equipment, and anything else that would flow out of the
operation that would enhance and maintain the undergraduate
educational program at this institution.

The University will strive to stimulate the development and
enhancement of its graduate, professional and research programs.
That is pretty much self—explanatory. We are a research institution,
we are a graduate institution, we are a doctoral granting
institution. He are looking at that in terms of growth and

development of the institution. The University will identify
multi—disciplinary centers of excellence which build on existing
strengths, address critical needs of the Commonwealth and have a
direct impact on economic development. Some of those, as you know,
have already been identified, but we will continue to look at that as
an area in terms of program development. The University will strive
to enhance its service to the citizens of the Commonwealth through
all the public service activities of the institution that are
currently underway from the Agriculture Extension Service to the
continuing education non—credit kinds of academic programs and all
the other public service activities that exist in the institution.

The Lexington Campus and Medical Center will manage enrollments
through gradually recruiting highly qualified freshmen and transfer
students and initiating special retention programs to retain those
students. You know what has happened this year with our selective
admissions. He admitted 2,930 some freshmen students. We had talked
about the freshman class of something in the neighborhood between
2500 to 2600 of high quality students. We obviously surpassed that
with ll,000 applications. Selective admission is having an
interesting impact on the numbers as well as the quality.

The University will strive to respond to those physical and
program accountability demands. Accountability continues to be the
hot word in terms of public support of education. You see it every
day in terms of the educational programs in elementary and secondary
schools. One needs to be accountable. It is kind of a buzz word


 also in terms of state government in higher education. We know we
are fiscally accountable, we are programmatically accountable, but
the problem is that we are not sure that the people who want us to be
accountable know what they want us to be accountable for. We have
that conversation probably two or three times a month with people in
the political arena both in the executive and legislative branch.

The University will recognize and emphasize the importance of
non-traditional sources of income. We are looking at, as you know, a
capital fund project to enhance dramatically the giving to this
institution. I think everytime the President talks to a faculty
member or faculty group, he talks about his own priority of faculty
submitting and developing proposals for extramural support in terms
of supporting certain activities.

The University will seek partnership with industry, business,
and other schools. The recent Asphalt Institute is one of the first
examples. That is really a partnership between the state, the
Asphalt Institute, and the University of Kentucky. We attracted that
institute from the University of Maryland. The competition was with
two Texas schools, both UT and A & M as well as Purdue. That is one
which we hope will be beneficial not only to the Institution but to
the Asphalt Institute and asphalt industry. Ground was broken at
Spindletop for that facility last week.

The University will enhance computing and communications
capabilities. We are still moving along in that area and hope we
will continue that development as resources become available.

All of the strategic directions are designed hopefully to make
the University of Kentucky one of the truly recognized national
institutions in quality and Scholarship. That is the overall
objective for all of our actions in tenns of financing the program

This year we are revising the planning process somewhat. We
will reexamine the strategic directions in terms of what is going on
outside the University, what the external environment looks like in
terms of those strategic directions and looking at the weaknesses and
strengths of the Institution and programs. You need to take the time
in the process, however, that involves in your particular sector,
college or department, and step back and look and see what this
University ought to be, what our collective vision of the University
is, and hopefully the process will allow those who want to be
involved to participate in that examination of the University of
Kentucky. That process will be taking place over the next two or
three months and evolving from it hopefully will be the University's
revised strategic direction and in that context we would hope each
college would develop a plan that would be consistent with and
supportive of those directions.

If we have all failed in something, it seems to me that we
really have had a kind of fragmented approach to planning. Part of

it has been our approach and part of it has been timing. If we get


 anything out of this, I would hope that every faculty member
understands the theme and takes the time to look at the documentation
that flows out of this which hopefully will not be a 700 page two
volume copy, which is what has been flowing out of it in the past. A
very brief statement of mission, purpose and priorities at the
University of Kentucky long term. Out of that would flow our
biennial budget request. We hope this approach will convey
information both externally and internally focusing concise vision of
the institution and that the planning and budget process will be
separated. We reviewed with the Chancellors and Vice Presidents what
has been going on in the planning process in the past and there was
one consistent theme and that is the encumbered plan was budget and
there is not much question about that. We need to separate those two
things if we are going to try to do that. At the time that will
detail proposals which have little chance of being funded. This
process would help the department chairs, deans, Chancellors, vice
presidents and the president to focus on those resource needs that
will drive the institution in the direction in which it should be
gOing. '

That is a very quick and early review of the operating budget.
It is a very early review of the planning process. Mr. Chairman, I
did not take the entire afternoon, but I will be happy to respond to
any questions you might have on either the operating budget this
year, the operating budget for next year, the planning process or
most any other problem.

Professor Glixon wanted to knOw more about the current expense grants and
if they would be at the level of college or department. Mr. Carter said that
current expense grants might be a bad term but what was done was target
current expense dollars to the academic units or sectors with the
understanding that those current expense dollars would go only to the academic
units, not to any support units. Mr. Carter did not know how it was managed
in each sector. It was equivalent to $500 per faculty position. That was
purely designed to get money into the academic units without it being siphoned
off administratively to do other things. Professor Glixon wanted to know if
the Centers for Excellence would be limited to those areas that can
demonstrate economic development therefore excluding probably the humanities
and the arts. Mr. Carter said that is one of the criteria but actually there
are three and the decision has not been made that all three have to be

Student Senator Mehram Jahed wanted to know about the lack of scholarship
funds for next year. Mr. Carter said that in the early proposal scholarships
had not been dealt with, but they would have to be looked at because tuition
was going up again and in terms of the existing scholarship programs they
would have to be kept in the same place in relation to the tuition increase.
He said that at this point the scholarship funds do not have a dollar figure.

Professor Jo Ann Never (Nursing) wanted to know if Mr. Carter was
including the Medical Center when he mentioned the main campus in regard to
grants. Mr. Carter said that main campus did include the Medical Center.
Professor Never also wanted to know what direction was given for salary


 increases and would every faculty member expect to receive a 5% increase or
would it be based on merit. Mr. Carter said that increases would always be
merit or as long as the governing regulations of the Institution had that

Professor Joyce Bowlyow (Allied Health) from the Department of Health
Services said that she found it rather ironic that on one hand we are having
problems with increases in health insurance and on the other hand very happy
to be receiving money from the hospital into the revenue. She said that maybe
the funding for health insurance can be tagged in some way onto increased
revenues from the hospital because it all comes from the same source. Mr.
Carter said that the $4 million from the hospital and athletics is not another
increase. He said that was only the agreement that had been made. He added
that most of the excess revenue flowing from the hospital to the physicians is
not coming from our employees. University employees are utilizing our own
health care facilities.

Student Senator Joseph Elias wanted to know about the tuition increase.
Mr. Carter said that the rate was not very high and the Council on Higher
Education sets that rate. He said the rate of increase was less than 5%. Mr.
Elias wanted to know if there would be an increase in fees beyond the
tuition. Mr. Carter said that at this point there are no additional fees.

Professor Hans Gesund (Engineering) wanted to know what is being done to
enhance the revenues. Obviously a large part of the revenues comes from State
apprbpriations. He wanted to know who is getting involved with the Governor

and Legislature to do what is necessary for the University. Mr. Carter said
that the University is involved almost daily. Dr. Charles Héthington has been
assigned the responsibility of Governmental Relations, the President is
involved, the Chainnan of the Board is involved, and the University is
involved with the legislators on almost a day to day basis. He felt that
until the Governor and Legislature can come to some agreement on what to do
with elementary and secondary education, there would not be much massaging and
manipulating that can be done for higher education. He said work had been
done not to get in the same kind of situation that the University was in last
year. He added that the Governor did not have enough revenue and probably
the inability to reallocate. He felt the bottom line in terms of the
increased State support for the Institution is that until there is an enhanced
revenue budget for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, there would not be much of a
change, unless we would look at our own sources for revenue, but 48% of the
total budget comes from State appropriations.

A Student Senator asked about the increase in health fees. Mr. Carter
said that the Student Government and the Board of Trustees agreed to develop a
student fee policy which would set the parimeters around that activity which
would guarantee student involvement in the setting of the policy.

Professor Gesund believed the overhead charges on research contracts now
run around 57%. He said there are many private institutions in the northeast
where those charges run from 70 to 80 percent. He felt there could be $5
million for faculty salary increases.

Professor Marcus McEllistrem (Physics and Astronomy) said that the
overhead rate for public state universities is one of the largest in the


 country. He added that increasing overhead is not a way to increase the
University's budget.

Professor Jesse Neil (Physics & Astronomy) said there was a big gap in the
figures on what is anticipated in revenue and the outgo and wanted to know how
the gap was going to be closed. Mr. Carter said that all the options would be
looked at in terms of revenue enhancement, look at decisions as to whether to
leave those items in the budget, and it is a question of increasing the
revenue or whether to decrease the essential items. He said that obviously
one or the other had to be done. Professor Neil wanted to know if there were
options to increase the revenue. Mr. Carter said there were always options
but not in large amounts. He added that revenue could be increased
substantially through higher student fees. He said the health fee put one
million dollars in the allocated base. The state allocations are fixed, or he
hopes they are fixed. That has been one of the problems; they have not been

Mr. Carter thanked the Senate and he was given a round of applause.

The Chairman thanked Mr. Carter for taking the time to share the
information with the Senate. The Chairman said he appreciated Mr. Carter's
willingness to open up the planning process to include the faculty.

There being no further business to come before the Senate, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 3:50 p.m.

/////W/ (iii/K
Randall W. Dahl
Secretary, University Senate
























$ 10.536







Aaron, Debra K.
Allen, George P.
Anaral, Donna
Anderson, Robert G.
Anschel, Kurt R.
Archbold, Douglas D.
Bailey, Ernest F.
Baker, John P.
Barfield, Billy M.
Barnhisel, Richard I.
Barrett, Michael
Beck, Robert L.
Benson, Fred J.
Bitzer, Morris J.
Blake, Jerry W.
Blevins, Robert L.
Bobst, Barry W.
Bokemeier, Janet L.
Boling, James
Bradley, Neil W.
Brannon, Russell H.
Brown, Gerald R.
Brown, Grayson C.
Bryans, John T.
Burmeister, Larry L.
Burris Walter R.
Burton, Harold R.
Busch, Lawrence M.
Bush, Lowell P.
Buxton, Jack W.
Cantor, Austin H.
Cervelli, Janice Ann
Chang, Sun Joseph
Chappell, G. L. Monty
Chappell, Joseph
Cheniae, George M.

Christensen, Christian M.

Christensen, James A.
Collins, Glenn B.
Collins, Michael
Colliver, Donald G.
Coltharp, George B.
Cornelius, Paul L.
Coughenour, C. Milton
Crist, William L.
Cromwell, Gary L.
Dahlman, Douglas L.
Darden, Douglas W.
Davis, Joe T.

Dawson, Karl A.


Debertin, David L.
Donahue, James M.
Daugherty, Charles T.
Duncan, George A.
Dunwell, Winston C.
Edgerton, Lee A.
Egli, Dennis B.
Ely, Donald G.
Evangelou, Vasilios P.
Felton, Gary K.
Ferriss, Richard S.
Fitzgerald, Barry
Flashman, Robert H.
Forester, Janice D.
Fountain, William
Freytag, Paul H.
Frye, Wilbur
Garkovich, Lorraine E.
Gates, Richard S.
Gay, Nelson

Geneve, Robert
Ghabrial, Said A.
Giles, Ralph C.
Grabau, Larry J.
Graves, Donald H.
Green, J. D.

Grove, John Hamman
Hall, Harry H.
Hansen, Gary L.
Harmon, Robert J.
Hartman, John R.
Haynes, Kenneth F.
Hays, Virgil W.
Heaton, Linda S.
Heersche, George
Hemken, Roger W.
Hendrix, James W.
Herbek, James H.
Hershman, Donald E.
Hicks, Clair L.
Hildebrand, David F.
Hill, Deborah B.
Hong, Chuen B.
Houtz, R. L.

Hunt, Arthur
Ilvento, Thomas W.
Infanger, Craig L.
Jackson, James A.
Jackson, Stephen G.
Johns, John T.
Johnson, Douglas W.
Jones, Davy

Jones, Larry D.
Jones, Richard T.
Justus, Fred E.
Kalisz, Paul J.
Karathanasis, Anastasious
Kemp, James D.
Kemp, Thomas R.
Kenkel, William
Kimmerer, Thomas W.
Knapp, Fred W.
Knavel, Dean E.
Kuc, Joseph
Lacefield, Garry D.
Langlois, Bruce E.
Legg, Paul

Liptrap, Dennis 0.
Liu, Calvin J.
Love, Harold G.
Lowry, Stephen
Lyons, Eugene T.
Maksymowicz, William E.
Martin, James R.
Maruyama, Fudeko T.
Mather, Loys L.
Maurer, Richard C.
McCollum, William H.
McDowell, Karen
McNiel, Robert E.
Means, Warrie J.
Meyer, A. Lee
Miksch, Duane
Mitchell, George E.
Muller, Robert N.
Murdock, Lloyd W.
Murphy, William E.
Nall, Martha A.
Nesmith, William C.
Nichols, Carla G.
Nielsen, Mark T.
Nieman, Thomas J.
Nordin, Gerald L.
O‘Leary, Joseph
Olson, Kenneth E.
Olson, James R.
Overhults, Doug G.
Pagoulatos, Angelos
Palmer, Gary R.
Parker, Blaine F.
Parker, Gary R.
Pass, Bobby C.
Payne, Frederick

Peaslee, Doyle
Pescatore, A. J.
Pfeiffer, Todd W.
Phillips, Ronald E.
Pirone, Thomas P.
Poneleit, Charles G.
Poonacha, Kockanda B.
Potter, Daniel A.
Powell, Andrew J.
Quick, J. Samuel
Raney, Harley G.
Rasnake, Monroe
Ragland, John L.
Reed, Michael R.
Rennekamp, Roger A.
Rice, Harold B.
Riggins, Steven K.
Ringe, James M.
Roberts, Clarence R.
Rodriguez, Juan G.
Rooney, James R.
Ross, Ira J.

Schach, Horst
Schardl, Christopher L.
Scheibner, Rudolph A.
Schillo, Keith K.
Servello, Frederick A.
Shain, Louis

Shaw, John G.
Shearer, Scott A.
Sheen, Shuh J.
Shepherd, Robert J.
Shurley, William D.
Siegel, Malcolm R.
Silvia, William J.
Sims, John L.

Skees, Jerry Robert
Smiley, Jones H.
Smith, David A.
Smith, Edward M.
Smith, Eldon D.
Smith, M. Scott
Smith, Patty R.
Snyder, John C.
Southerland, Robert J.
Stahly, Tim S.
Stegelin, Forrest E.
Stoltz, Leonard P.
Strang, John G.