xt7tdz032g77 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7tdz032g77/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1970-10-12  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, October 12, 1970 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 12, 1970 1970 1970-10-12 2020 true xt7tdz032g77 section xt7tdz032g77 “IL-33th“ cut" ‘ , r (At-t" 'r-“’I-‘v4 u .“A‘ . '- . 1 v z '1 an \,~_ .~..-..'<,_‘,- “pa". .‘_.‘.; . \-

Minutes of the University Senate, September 14, 1970 3011

PreSident to determine whether or not it should be Open to the Press. This
motion was seconded.

At this point call for adjournment was made from the floor. By a hand
count of 73 to 51 the Senate voted for adjournment.

The Senate adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

Elbert W. Ockerman


The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, October
12, 1970, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Plucknett presided.
Members absent: Lawrence A. Allen*, Albert S. Bacdayan, James R. Barclay*,
Charles E. Barnhart, Robert A. Beargie*, Robert H. Biggerstaff*, Frederick
Bollum*, Thomas D. Brower, Mary R. Brown*, Herbert Bruce*, Clyde R. Carpenter*,
Ralph S. Carpenter*, Maurice A. Clay*, William B. Cotter*, William H. Dennen,
Robert M. Drake*, Eugene B. Gallagher, Charles P. Graves, Ward 0. Griffen,
Willis H. Griffin, John V. Haley*, Jack B. Hall, Joseph Hamburg, Richard Hanau*,
Rebekah Harleston*, Charles F. Haywood*, John W. Hutchinson*, Mary Frances
James*, Raymon D. Johnson, Irving F. Kanner*, Donald E. Knapp*, James A.
Knoblett*, James F. Lafferty, Bruce E. Langlois*, Harold R. Laswell*, Thomas
J. Leonard, Arthur Lieber*, Donald L. Madden*, Maurice K. Marshall*,
William R. Merritt, Blaine F. Parker*, Bobby C. Pass, Albert W. Patrick,
John T. Reeves, John C. Robertson*, John W. Roddick, Alex Romanowitz,
Gerald I. Roth*, Betty R. Rudnick*, George Ruschell, John S. Scarborough*,
George W. Schwert*, Ian Shine, D. Milton Shuffett*, Raymond A. Smith*,
John B. Stephenson, Leonard P. Stoltz*, Robert Straus*, Thomas B. Stroup,
Betty A. Taylor*, John Thrailkill*, John N. Walker*, M. Stanley Wall,

Charles A. Walton*, James H. Wells*, Harry E. Wheeler*, Alfred D. Winer,
and Robert G. Zumwinkle.

The Senate approved the requests of Jane Brown, Kernel reporter, and
Dick Ware, Kernel photographer, to attend, report and photograph the meeting.

The Chairman announced the appointment of Dr. Charles Elton to fill the
newly approved office of Sergeant at Arms of the Senate and announced further
that Professor David Larimore would act as his assistant.

The Chairman reminded the Senators of the special meeting of the Senate
to be held at 3:00 p.m., October 29, 1970, for the purpose of considering the
agenda items which were postponed from this meeting.

The Chairman then introduced to the Senators Dr. Otis A. Singletary,
President of the University of Kentucky. The text of Dr. Singletary's
address follows.

*Absence explained




“2"???er 73......“ an": a "Mm-m...

Minutes of the University Senate, October 12, 1970

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good afternoon, members of the Senate
and guests. It is a pleasure to be here and to have a chance to say some
things to you about the year past and the year and years ahead. I thought Ii
it might be worthwhile to spend this time in reviewing some of the things
that have happened on this campus in the past year and to project a bit about
some of the things that are discernible, I think, in our relatively immediate

In talking about the past year I must say that I am always stunned when
I find people —— and I find them frequently —— who have the feeling
that either nothing ornot much is happening on the campus —- a view not
widely shared from my desk. I thought I might very well take the time to
review and, in some cases, amplify some of the things that have happened
here in the past year because —— particularly in terms of positions, gt
cetera —— I think they have not been clearly or widely understood. For
example, I think the question of administrative reorganization that has
gone on in this last year probably needs to have some additional things said
about it and I would like to take this opportunity to do it. .

Last year, you may recall, when I first spoke here I told you that I
had no immediate plans —— no preordained structure in which to shape the
administration and that I wanted some time to look at it and see how it
worked and did not not work, and, after some time, to make the changes
that I thought I wanted to make. In April of this year we did indeed
reorganize, at what is called the ”cabinet" level, and I would like to
say something about some of these changes.

As you know, we retained several of the vice presidencies as they had
existed: business, external relations, student affairs, and the Medical
Center. But we created some new positions and abolished some old ones and
I think perhaps it might be worthwhile to say just a little more about
each of these four positions that were created or changed.

The Vice President for Administration, for example —— as you know, Dr.
Alvin Morris is filling that position. That is not to be seen as an .
executive vice presidency. It was never envisioned that way by me or

by Dr. Morris. I would describe it as more a staff office in the President's
Office, and I see Dr. Morris as doing a wide range of things, most of

them ad hoc, as they come up. He has been very helpful to me this year in
taking specific assignments and seeing that they got done. I see him also

as a link in terms of continuity. When I am gone from the campus it is
desirable to have one focal point where the institutional responsibility

can be placed, and I see him in that role. He was, for a while, serving
also as advisor to me for matters having to do with the Medical Center and
its varied activities. What I am saying is that it is, eSSentially, as

I see it and as Dr. Morris sees it, a staff job in the President's Office.

The position of Vice President for Academic Affairs is also a new one —-
Dr. Cochran's position. That job is seen as the administrative office at
the head of what we recognize as the Division of Colleges, with the academic
deans reporting directly to him. I see that office as the focal point for .
all internal academic matters and I am pleased to say that we have been
able to divest him of his roles as Graduate Dean, Provost, and whatever
other titles were circulating around up there, and that he can give full time
to this position. Needless to say, we see it as a very important one.


Minutes of the University Senate, October 12, 1970

You may recall that we created a vice presidency for the Community
College System. This came as the result of a recommendation from this
body and I think it was a very wise one. The Community College System
has now grown, both in size and complexity, to the point where I think it
fully warranted having someone at the vice presidential level inside the
University administration. Dr. Hartford retired from that position and
Dr. Stanley Wall was appointed.

The Vice President for Institutional Planning —— Dr. Albright's title ——
is one that is brand new in design and concept. I think that it gives us a
potential now to have some place in this University where someone can do two
things that are going to become increasingly important to us: one, to take
the longer—range look and to concentrate on the planning function and area;
to be deciding in advance what are the alternatives and how we might approach
them; what perhaps we ought to consider doing. And second, and equally as
important, is the evaluation function. Many institutions like ours are doing
all kinds of things and assuming that they are good. This is not necessarily
true and I think, particularly in view of the history of this institution in
its last decade, it probably is high time we begin to examine rather carefully
and critically some of the things that we decided to do and that we assume
are going very well. It would be nice to confirm these, but, if not,we should
then raise some questions and alternatives.

In all of this we also had the decision to do away with the concept of
an Executive Vice President which meant that I took the Budget Director
into my office, the implication being that each Vice President becomes an
executive vice president for his area. This is somewhat different and at
times a difficult adjustment, but it is going to be made and it has to be made.

Closely paralleling the administrative reorganization of the vice
presidencies are the administrative appointments that have been made during
the year, particularly those of fairly recent vintage. I am sure you have
had a chance by now to meet the new Vice President for Student Affairs, Dr.
Zumwinkle. I am delighted that he is here. I know that he is working hard
at what can only be described as a difficult job. He is an interested and
concerned man. He has a remarkable degree of patience I am happy to say, and

I look forward with some optimism to what he is going to be able to do in
that role.

We have recently named a new Vice President for the Medical Center,
Dr. Bosomworth. Peter Bosomworth was the unanimous choice of the Committee,
as I recall, and comes to this position with a good deal of experience inside
the Medical Center. The functions and responsibilities in that area were
of such a nature that we needed somebody 29w, and someone already familiar
with the Medical Center. Every indication up to this point, and he has been
in the job a very short time, confirms that as being a wise choice. Dr.
Willard, who has resigned as Vice President of the Medical Center to come
into my office as a special advisor in the health affairs field, has a range
of assignments. We must now, with the University of Louisville coming into
the state system, begin to devise ways in which they and we can work together
toward the elimination of unnecessary duplication and this type of thing in
this very costly area. He has already begun to hold joint meetings with the
University of Louisville staff to discuss the common approaches that we might
take. In addition to that I think he is uniquely fitted to help us make the



. .- . - c.“ h v n .x .. . .,»- u... . . m,» wrimucar-mavfl’flwm’h waffi‘f. . . ?" ‘.5‘-‘“-““‘“"’”"'“°1"T‘".‘"‘

Minutes of the University Senate, October 12, 1970

case in the state, that I have not seen adequately made in my short time here,
about the real value of that Medical Center to this Commonwealth. I think

he can also be particularly helpful to me in dealing both with the Council

on Public Higher Education and the Legislature in terms of programs and the
future of the Medical Center —— making a good case for its needs.

We have recently appointed a Dean of Undergraduate Studies, Mr. John
Stephenson. That position has been available for some time on this campus.
It was created some years ago but has never been filled for a number of
reasons, one, because there was never any clear description of what the job
was, and secondly, because I suspect no one could ever be persuaded to take
it. We are still not very clear what the job is but we have persuaded
John Stephenson to take it and I am duly appreciative of that. There
is no magic in this and it would be unfair to Dr. Stephenson to assume that
his appointment is suddenly going to take care of all the problems that one
hears about in the area of undergraduate education. It is essentially a
staff position in the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

He will also preside over the Undergraduate Council and will have certain
programs reporting directly to him administratively. The important thing,
as I see it at this point, is that it establishes once again a focal point
in the central administration for the concerns or the input —— students,
faculty, etc. —— in those areas of curriculum and of advising and of
teaching that are the overriding concerns of undergraduate education.

We have also recently appointed an acting Dean of the Graduate School.
Dr. William Dennen has agreed to take it on for the year as Acting Dean
and is already at work. The Committee that was originally appointed to
search for this position is continuing its labors and it is our hope that
this can be settled in the current academic session.

The Academic Ombudsman has been appointed. You all know that Professor
Garrett Flickinger agreed to take this for this first year and I am pleased
at that decision on his part and I think he will do a good job in a very
difficult area. You, as members of this body, have spent considerable time
in discussing and making decisions about this particular function and here
again I would say that it is a focal point where a student on this campus
has some specific place to go to find out what he can do or what is
available to him and I am very hopeful that this is going to be a con—
tribution to our campus.

Perhaps some of you do not know it but thereis a faculty member on
special faculty assignment, half—time, to my office. I asked Dr. Paul
Sears to serve in that capacity this year which he agreed to do and he is
already proving his helpfulness to me in all kinds of ways.

The Vice Presidency for Business Affairs is still in an acting
situation. There is a committee at work on it and I am hopeful that within
the next few weeks we can find a more or less permanent solution. What I
am trying to say to you is that in the course of the year there has been a
considerable amount of time and thought and activity going into the question
of what kinds of administrative offices, officers and people we want. We
have tried to fill most of our key positions and to do it with as little
trauma to this institution as is possible. You may consider it gratuitous
but I suspect that we do not need another upheaval having to do with people
in administrative positions. I am also certain of the fact that finding the



k ‘ .

Minutes of the University Senate, October 12, 1970 3015

people and structuring the jobs are one thing but now the primary job in
front of us is getting this new machinery to work the way we want it to work
and the way we hope it will work.

I will move now to say something about some developments that may have
gone unnoticed in the area of the schools and colleges. There has been con—
siderable reorganization in a number of our colleges. Dean Barnhart of the
College of Agriculture has made some rather dramatic changes, particularly
in terms of his county agent and extension services. There is a committee
at work in the College of Arts and Sciences looking at the question of restruc—
turing that College. I do not know at this moment precisely where that study
is but I will look forward to learning about it from Dean Royster. There is
a new Dean in the College of Home Economics and considerable reorganization
in that area plus the bringing in of some new department chairmen. We have
established a College of Social Professions and the role of Dean Witte,
particularly in the development of the new graduate program which is off to
a good start this year, has been significant. In the College of Allied
Health Professions we have seen a new thrust in the area of training
instructional personnel in these various areas. As you probably know,
there is a great shortage in these areas and the grant which you may have
read about a month or longer ago —— the Kellogg Foundation Grant —— identified
this institution as the training point for a five—state region for a program
for training this kind of person. The Allied Health people, in cooperation
with the College of Education and the Community College System, have put
together what is a very interesting program.

In addition to these things some physical facilities have been shaken
loose. The Animal Sciences Building is now under way. There is a health,
physical education and recreation facility on the drawing boards. It is not
going to have everything we originally hoped to have in it in terms of
space or facilities but it is going to be something we don't have now. I
say again that one of the real deficiencies on this campus is the shortage
of recreational space and facilities for what can can clearly be described
as a burgeoning student body. We are about ready to move on the construction
of another ”surge” building, one of the research facilities we have which,
in terms of office space and laboratory space, will be divided between
Arts and Sciences and the Medical Center. The Veterans Administration Hospital
which is being built adjacent to and eventually will be contiguous with our
own hospital is underway and is going to give us a capability about double
the number of beds we now have in our own hospital. Further, it can help
us to increase the size of the Medical School class, one of the pressing
problems of this country.

Some other things that are not as visible as buildings either under
construction or being planned, is the adoption of the Governing Regulations
last May. I understand this is the first major revision since 1960. Copies
have recently been distributed. We have begun what will probably be a more
difficult task, that of creating something called Administrative Regulations.
I kept reading in the Governing Regulations about what was in the Administrative
Regulations but I never could find the Administrative Regulations so finally
I asked where they were and was told there weren't any. I would like to think
that we can move toward the creation of a companion document to include those
regulations which are already around but which need to be pulled together and
codified as well as some others which need to be prepared to fill in the gaps.
The Student Code has been revised not once but twice as I am frequently
reminded and as I recall, the first revision was completed just in time to







. . .J ., . . . . . »- . . u . . .29...» an»: .~ W wmwwamsswre , . .mars!«WI-wms-vw-r—wwwu:

Minutes of the University Senate, October 12, 1970

begin on the second.

We have implemented certain recommendations of the Advisory Committee
on Community Colleges. I said earlier that we moved in the area of creating
a Vice Presidency. We also have been able to do something in the area of
giving the Community Colleges more autonomy in their academic programs.

I think it was one of the really important things that the Senate did last
year, that of recognizing the special needs and special concerns of our Com—
munity College System.

We have received the Senate Report on Balance Among Teaching, Research
and Service. You may not be aware that I have appointed a committee under
the chairmanship of Dr. Albright to look at this whole question of
evaluation of performance, teaching, research, and service. There are
deans, department chairmen, faculty members, and students on this committee
and the charge they have is to take a look at what we now have and suggest
ways that it might be improved. I have received a large number of suggestions
individually and it is my feeling that while the concept of evaluation is
still one that has considerable support, there is less and less affection
attached to the instrument or instruments currently being used to do it and
I fear the day when we are not going to have enough administrative machinery
to deal with the size of the appeals that come in.

We have made a considerable degree of progress in the institutional
self—study. As you know, we are coming up now for our ten—year review with
the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Dr. Morris Cierley and
the committee he chairs have given a considerable degree of attention and
a considerable amount of work to preparing, not for just the report, but
also for the visit which takes place here in the second week of February 1971.
I think the document is not just going to be useful in some abstract way.

I intend to use it as one way to obtain a better understanding of the problems
of the University than I have thus far been able to do.

I have also appointed members to the new University Senate Hearing Panel
on Privilege and Tenure which was recommended earlier by this Senate.

Last year was also a budget year, a legislative year, and we gave a
considerable amount of time to that, the result being that it was possible
for us to stay in the ball game for a while anyway with some increase in
faculty salaries and some small amount for program development, and that is
about it. We did swallow hard that large chunk of debt service that I told
you about a year ago when I was here and I am still having pangs of
indigestion over that. We have also survived since we received that first
budget cut. As you know, the state did not realize or has not, at this point,
realized the level of income that it anticipated, so it levied a cut—back
against institutions through out the state system and, in our case, it
came down to a figure of $631,000. When we took the $631,000 out of this
institution we, fundamentally, had two choices. One was to go in and take
away the unfilled positions or to take what little cushion we had in the
way of contingency reserve and try not to touch the College and Departmental
budgets. We decided on the latter. The result is that we really are out
of any more venture capital at the moment. A far more frightening thing to
me, although I don't guess you need to stay awake nights too —— let me do
that —— is the fact that right now we are operating this institution with
a contingency or reserve fund of 0.4 ofone per cent of our budget. I



Minutes of the University Senate, October 12, 1970 3017

daresay no other enterprise of this kind in the country would undertake this
kind of foolhardiness. The fact of the matter is that something like the
change that is coming has already come; we just haven't had to pay the

bills yet. Just in the new coal contracts the cost of coal, among other things,
has gone up rather dramatically. Somehow to find the dollars not in the

budget becomes then a kind of pressing problem. It is not, essentially, your
problem, at least not directly. But what I am saying is that for years we

have had a very comfortable position of having a reserve or contingency

that would take care of these things in the normal routine. We stand at

the moment somewhat indisposed.

I would also mention the recent decision approved by the Board of
Trustees to assume the cost of the basic life insurance program. That
amounted to two things: one, a kind of modest pay raise which I hope
you do not object to; and two, a decision not to get into a legal battle which
we might well have won on the grounds of making it a requirement as a
condition of employment -— as a policy matter —— not particularly wanting
to win that battle for in the process we might have jeopardized an insurance
program that benefits the overwhelming majority of members of the faculty.

It is a program that has been heartily endorsed by the faculty welfare

These are some of the things that have been going on and I do not think
it worthwhile to spend more time on them. I would prefer to say something
about the things that I suspect we must do and I would like to create a
context within which to make these remarks.

It is a kind of cliche nowadays to remind anyone that these are stressful
times in higher education. The range of problems that confront institutions,
both internal and external, is very serious. The result is that we seem to
be preoccupied with troubles and problems. I guess they are inescapable since
they are what one faces every day. However, I think that we should not lose
sight of the fact of the very real accomplishments of higher education
in this country. I think we can make a case that for all the criticism
about conformity and all the rest of it, we have knowingly, and, in some
ways, purposefully created a generation of young people who have both the
desire and the ability to do some thinking for themselves and they are not
reluctant to tell one about it. I think we might do well to remember that
for all our shortcomings we also lead all the nations of the world in educating
the highest percentage in the college age group and in the development of
graduate study, professional education, and research. I think we can even
argue that we are moving fairly steadily —— although the pace does not please
many —— toward the ideal of higher education for all who can, in fact, benefit
from it. I believe anyone would agree that the universities have made
fantastic contributions to society in terms of its economy and in terms of
the services that the public has sought and expected from us. In spite of
all the shrill cries about repression and conformity I would argue that the
University community allows more dissent, takes freedom of the mind and
spirit more seriously, and labors harder to create an environment in which
free expression can take place, than does any other institution in our society.
I think we tend either to lose sight of these things or not to appreciate
the magnitude of the achievement.

Moving down to this campus I think it is fair to say that we have our





. xzx


~ r ~ v. - \ ~ . ‘ < «a <' u ‘ N ‘ g. 4. ‘ “v V- r.“ “anywatm ‘m’ 'yWefb‘a-vcmch‘t‘Wfl‘Ff .232. itsfi-w -. . ; :r 315 T???“ “fi‘t‘rkarhrt-wfrwrs1.4:.»

Minutes of the University Senate, October 12, 1970

fair share of these problems and I do not intend to detail them here. You
are probably as familiar with them as I am. I will simply say that it is y
foolish to think that we are going to be allowed to stand aside from the power— 2%;
ful currents that are sweeping across this nation. But, once again, for

all the troubles and for all the problems that I know and you know, perspective
requires us to point out that the University of Kentucky is today a viable
institution. We have not only survived our troubles; I would argue that we

have come out of them in better shape than most institutions and I think we

would do well to remember this. I go beyond this to say that I think there

is a reason this is true and this reason is to be found in the people who

make these institutions what they are. It is my belief that the overwhelming
majority of faculty members and students want this University to be relevant

'in the best sense of that word; they want it to be effective in what it

purports to do; and they want it to do its job reasonably well. I think

there is general agreement, as I talk to people, that this University should

be kept open and far beyond that, that it should be kept functioning as

an educational institution, and far beyond that, that just possibly we

might make it a better institution than we found it and I think this is gM‘
an important goal to keep in front of us and to remember. I”

To be somewhat more specific, I think we must find ways here on our ’
campus to do a number of things and the first category I would lump in
the statement of finding ways to continue to deal with the same old problems
that have not gone away is the problem of numbers. The problem of numbers
has not disappeared and this campus alone had 1,600 or so new students
this fall. This is the equivalent Ofcreating a new college every year. And
yet, although you can find somebody that will give you a projection to tell
you whatever it is you really want to hear, I gather we are going to be at
this business for a good while yet of deciding what in the name of Heaven
we are going to do with the youngsters who are in the pipeline. Whether
they need to come to the University is a different question. The question
is ”Will Kentucky continue to provide the opportunity for education
beyond high school." Along with this old problem we are still going to
have the problem of dollars, except this problem is going to become 5
increasingly difficult. State appropriations are not going to grow anywhere J,
near the way they have in the past decade. I see no way for this to happen. "
The competition for the state dollar is very fierce, and not just among
institutions of higher learning. I think we are going to see in the next
Legislative Session a great push from other sections of the state. For
example, the public schools are going to be very active and are going to
have a very high priority. I see no way for us to take much comfort from
the fact that the state will either be able or willing to provide the kind
of increased funds that will be necessary for us to go on doing the kinds
of things we want and need to do. The same is true of the federal programs.
We are going to continue to get a considerable number of federal dollars
but I will tell you something else. This is going to be remembered as the
age of the cut—back and the stretch-out, and, in cutting back, particularly
in the scholarship and the loan area, it will wipe out the plans and possi—
bilities for a number of people. I do not see in the immediate future any
great change in the federal picture because I do not believe that the present
administration in Washington places higher education in a very high priority ‘jk
in terms of dollars. So, as we look down the road we have no reason to do ihk
anything but be concerned about that source. Student fees have been increas-
ing and are going to continue to increase. There is no way ngt_to do it.
Yet we have to be careful not somehow to get to the point where all the time

 ‘ ‘1


Minutes of the UniverSity Senate, October 12, 1970 3019

we are talking on the one hand about providing educational opportunity, we
are pricing that opportunity out of the market. That is a continuing problem
every year.

Private funds -— There is a word that can be said about private money
in the UniverSity of Kentucky and I guess I would start it by saying that while
I see this as no area in which many of our fundamental problems will be
solved, there are some areas in which a little frosting can be put on the
cake —— or at least on the corners of the cake —— through a better and more
effective solicitation of private dollars. Whatever else I am satisfied
of, I am satisfied of the fact that there is no real tradition in Kentucky
of private giving to this public university. That does not mean that nobody
has. It just is not widespread. Dr. Creech had a study done a year ago
that confirmed what we thought we already knew and that is that in almost every
measurable category — alumni giving, gifts, grants and bequests, corporate
giving, you name it — the University of Kentucky consistently rated at the
bottom of all the benchmark institutions around us. That does not just mean
Illinois and Indiana, but it also means West Virginia and Tennessee. So we
have been giving some thought to what to do. I will call to your attention
the study that has just been completed called the Brakeley Study. About a
year ago the Development Council sought the assistance of this private firm
to do a feasibility study for us and to make some recommendations. I won't
bore you with all the details. They did a good deal of telling us what we
already knew. But they confirmed, very generally, what we know and now I
believe we have a plan in front of us from which to begin working in this
area. I suspect, although we will be visiting some universities in the
next few weeks or months to look at the foundation structure, we are probably
going to move at this University to one umbrella foundation under which we
can carry our various gift—receiving enterprises. Then we can get to work
on some specifics. We can get to work on how to increase the alumni annual
giving and I tell you it can be increased; how we can improve and widen the
membership in our University Fellows and that can be done; and how we can get
some corporations —— even those in Kentucky who, through their various