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 LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032 UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL 25 November 1988 10 ADMINISTRATEON BUILDING 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. AGENDA: Minutes, 14 November 1988. Announcements. Resolutions. Presentation by Vice President Edward Carter on the UK budget and an overview of the strategic planning process. Other. Randall Dahl Secretary If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact Ms. Martha Sutton (7-7155) in advance. Thank you. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, DECEMBER 5, T988 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 Building. 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 remarks: 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 activities. 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 satisfied. 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 requirement. 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 fixed. 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- 1989‘90 PRELIMINARY BUDGET PLANNING LNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY AVAILABLE RESOURCES CHANGE IN STATE APPROPRIATION FORMULA (PROGRAM) DEBT SERVICE ADJUSTMENT JAPANESE SATURDAY SCHOOL ENERGY COMPLEX ADJUSTMENT NEW DEBT SERVICE - BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ADDITION/RENOVATION (ONE-HALF) - LIFE SAFETY PROJECTS SUBTOTAL IUITION AND EEES — RATE INCREASE (1.HZ) TOTAL EXPENDITURE NEEDS SPECIAL STATE APPROPRIATIONS - DEBT SERVICE ADJUSTMENT NEW DEBT SERVICE - JAPANESE SATURDAY SCHOOL SUBTOTAL FIXED COSTS - STAFF BENEFIT INCREASES (PRIMARILY HEALTH INSURANCE) - M a O — AG ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL CONTINUATION COSTS - SALARY INCREASE (52) - CURRENT EXPENSE INCREASE (3%) SUBTOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS — FACULTY GRANT PROGRAM - CURRENT EXPENSE GRANTS SUBTOTAL TOTAL OTHER PRIORITIES - IIBRARY SUPPORT - COMPUTING SUPPORT - SCHOLARSHIP SUPPORT MAIN CAMPUS $ 10.536 026 2011 (.750) .508 .137 $ TDTHES .500 COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE 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. FACULTY ELIGIBLE TO VOTE AND SERVE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ELECTION 1988-92 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. me,WfllhmG. 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. Pwdl,DMidG. 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. Stu