xt7tht2gbp8z https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7tht2gbp8z/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1991-12-09  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, December 9, 1991 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, December 9, 1991 1991 1991-12-09 2020 true xt7tht2gbp8z section xt7tht2gbp8z MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, DECEMBER 9, 1991

The University Senate met in regu1ar session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
December 9, 1991, in Room 115 of the Nursing Hea1th Sciences Bui1ding.

Marcus T. McE11istrem, Chair of the Senate Counci1, presided.

Members absent were: Jim Arnett*, Richard C. Ausness*, Robert S. Baker*,
Bart Ba1dwin*, Harry V. Barnard*, Robert L. B1evins*, Thomas O. B1ues*,
Doug1as A. Boyd*, Martha Bruenderman*, Joseph T. Burch*, Rutheford B
Campbe11*, Jr., C1yde R. Carpenter*, Ben w. Carr*, Edward A. Carter*, Samue1
Q. Cast1e*, Dona1d B. C1app*, Jordan L. Cohen*, Raymond H. Cox*, C1ifford J.
Cremers*, Lenore Crihfie1d*, Richard C. Domek*, Jr., Pau1 M. Eakin*, Richard
Edwards*, Raymond E. Forgue*, Ni1bur w. Frye*, Richard N. Furst*, Misha
Goetz*, Lester Go1dstein*, J. John Harris III*, Zafar S. Hasan*, Christine
Havice*, Brian Hoffman*, Micki King Hogue*, Ange1a Knopp*, James M. Kuder*,
Thomas N. Lester*, Arthur Lieber*, C. Oran Litt1e*, Lee J. Magid*, Shawn
Meauz*, Peggy S. Meszaros*, David A. Nash*, Derby Newman*, C1ayton P. Omvig*,
John J. Piecoro*, Jr., Danie1 R. Reedy*, Thomas C. Robinson*, Jim Shambhu*,
Michae1 C. Shannon*, David C. Short*, M. Scott Smith*, David H. Stockham*,
Dennis M. TeKrony*, Miros1aw Truszczynski*, Sa1vatore J. Turco*, Thomas J.
Wa1dhart*, Michae1 A. Nebb*, Caro1yn A. Wi11iams*, Eugene R. Ni11iams*, and
Constance P. Ni1son*.

The Chair we1comed everyone to the fina1 meeting of the University Senate
for 1991. The first item on the agenda was the President's remarks on the
budget and re1ated matters. The Chair recognized President Methington for his

Thanks Marc for inviting me. When I accepted this invitation
sometime back to ta1k to you about the budget cuts, I thought at that
time it was important for me to give you some sense of the direction
that I wou1d be taking in proposing these budget cuts to the Board of
Trustees. From Marc's comments and introduction p1ease understand
that what I am te11ing you this afternoon, I'm giving you the p1an
that wi11 be presented to the Board of Trustees tomorrow. It is a
proposa1 at this point other than the actions which I have a1ready
taken to try to put in p1ace a framework for managing a budget cut.

Before I begin this afternoon, since I know that the issue and
question of Governor Wi1kinson's appointment to the UK Board of
Trustees is on the minds of most of you, I wou1d 1ike to give you a
very brief statement that I wi11 issue today if asked. Those remarks
are that we are in receipt of a copy of a temporary injunction issued
by the Frank1in Circuit Court enjoining Governor Ni1kinson from
accepting the oath of office as a Trustee and from exercising the
powers and duties of a UK Trustee. We a1so have been advised that
Governor Wi1kinson's attorneys are appea1ing that decision. We do
not, at this juncture, know when nor do I know if the appea1 has been
heard or when the appea1 wi11 be heard. As I indicated ear1ier, the ‘
University wi11 abide by the orders of the courts in this instance,
and I wi11 have no further comment on the question of the injunction
or of the 1aw suit.

*Absence exp1ained.


 In mid-October, Governor Wilkinson announced a downward revision
in the state's revenue estimate for 1991-92 by $155 million.

State government budgets were reduced by $85 million, with the
recurring reduction for the higher education system operations
established at $3l.7 million and an additional $9.5 million reduction
for debt service due to bond issuance timing and interest savings.

I immediately announced a hiring freeze at the University for
all non-faculty positions to handle the deficit caused by a shortfall
in revenue. The freeze excluded positions in the University
Hospital, auxiliaries, affiliates, and those totally supported by
restricted funds.

On November 4, the Council on Higher Education approved a
reduction in the base of the state appropriation to the University of
Kentucky of $ll,839,900 for the University System and $3,287,300 for
the Community College System. This represents a serious budget
reduction that will hurt all facets of the operation of the

During November, each vice president and chancellor developed
plans for my review for managing the problems during l99l-92 as well
as~for implementing the recurring reduction in the institution‘s
expenditure base prior to the development of the l992-93 operating

Reduction plans have been reviewed by me and approved, the
management of the detailed implementation of the reductions has now
become the responsibility of the respective chancellors and vice

However, I want to assure you that we are continuing the
initiatives approved in the l990—9l and 9l—92 Operating Budgets, e.g.
Education Reform initiatives; diversity and equity matters; extended
graduate programs; instructional computing; and meeting enrollment
demands in the Community College System. In addition, the reduction
plans have been approved with a two-phased approach to deal with this
revenue shortfall.

Guidelines used for the development of the reduction plans:

a. The first priority in managing the reduction is the protection
of existing University employees and their salaries. Every
effort has been made to ensure that the budget cut is managed in
a manner that will not result in the termination of regular
full-time employees or the reduction of individual salaries.
Therefore, while we are having to reduce faculty and staff
positions, through attrition not layoffs, the priority which has
been placed on providing competitive salaries and benefits for
our University employees and on which considerable progress has
been made during this biennium — will not be diluted in this
reduction plan. A high priority for the 92-94 biennium is to
maintain the competitive salary position we have achieved and I


 encourage the Governor and General Assembly to do everything
possible to assist us in meeting that priority.

Support for the educational mission was a fundamental
consideration in developing the reduction plans. Selected
faculty position vacancies will continue to be filled since the
University's competitive salary situation provides an
opportunity to attract additional high—quality faculty members
to the University to help assure continued progress toward even
higher levels of academic excellence. No classes will be
cancelled for the spring semester l992 because of the budget
reduction, although class sections will be dropped and added as
usual to reflect enrollment trends. The class offerings for
l992-93 cannot be finalized until the l992 Session of the
General Assembly has completed action on the l992-94
appropriation to the University of Kentucky.

The hiring freeze will be continued for non-faculty positions
but with some flexibility to allow Chancellors and vice
presidents to fill the most critical positions. No more than
25% (budget value) of the vacancies in the affected positions
within a chancellor or vice presidential area will be filled
without presidential approval. This will provide for the
reduction of staffing numbers through attrition and therefore
avoid the necessity of layoffs of existing full—time
employees. (Excluded from the hiring freeze are positions in
the University Hospital and auxiliaries, and those in accounts
totally supported by restricted funds, recharges, or other
generated income.)

New positions will not be created unless absolutely necessary.
In such cases presidential approval will be required before the
new position is established. (Excluded are positions in the
University Hospital and auxiliaries, and those in accounts
totally supported by restricted funds, recharges, or other
generated income.)

Operating expenses are to be significantly reduced in each
chancellor/vice presidential area. Travel and printing funds
will be sharply reduced and in some cases completely eliminated.

Capital equipment purchases and proposed renovation projects
have been reviewed by the appropriate chancellor and vice
president to affirm priorities and to determine possible budget

Each chancellor and vice president has submitted a budget
reduction plan consistent with the general guidelines. These plans
provide a framework for managing this significant reduction in the
level of operation for the University. Within the framework
approved, the Chancellors and vice presidents have the flexibility to
manage the details in implementing these reduction plans.


 The Chancellors and vice presidents have worked with their
faculty and unit administrators to construct these reduction plans
with the objectives of not placing undue hardship on the University's
employees and without seriously jeopardizing the delivery of
instructional programs to our students. I very much appreciate that
cooperative approach to solving this serious institutional problem.

However, it is clear that the implementation of this budget
reduction plan will result in the lowering by attrition of the number
of employee positions available to carry out the University mission.
Meeting the demands placed on the institution's programs with fewer
positions means that the remaining employees will have to work a
little harder and carry a larger share of the load in order to
continue the instruction, research, service and support activities of
the University of Kentucky.

For example, this year we have experienced considerable
enrollment growth - 4.6% in the University System and l3% in the
Community College System (record enrollment levels in each case) -
which increases the load on our existing faculty and staff even more.

We must all continue to work together to ensure that this
University meets its obligations to its students and the people of

l. THE 9l—92 NONRECURRING PLANS-—Between now and June 30, 1992, the
UniverSity must reduce spending or increase income from sources
other than state appropriation in order to manage the cash flow
problems created by the reduction in approved state appropria-
tion income supporting the enacted l99l-92 budget of the


That will be accomplished by-
Not filling vacancies -— $4.0 million;

Reducing expenditures for supplies, printing, travel, and other
operating expenses —- $3.5 million;

Foregoing purchases of equipment and proposed renovation
projects -— $l.7 million;

Reducing operating contingency reserve —- $0.5 million;
Utilizing tuition income realized from enrollment growth in both

the University System and Community College System of -- $3.9
million; and

Moving existing general fund expenses of $1.6 million to other
fund sources which would have otherwise been used for other
program support.

Governor's directive to all state agenCies was to ensure that

the base budgets for l992-94 purposes were reduced by the amount



 of the General Fund cut. Each chancellor and vice president has
developed a plan to reduce their areas of operations. I have
approved the plans for permanent reductions in each of the
areas. Those plans will go to the Board of Trustees tomorrow.
The approved plans will reduce the expenditure base of the
University System by $ll.8 million and the Community College
System by $3.3 million.

This will be accomplished by moving general fund expenses to
other fund sources $0.6 million; reducing contingency reserves
$l.l million; implementation of more stringent utility
conservation programs $0.5 million; reducing equipment purchases
and renovation $0.6 million; reducing budgets for travel,
printing and other operating expenses by $4.3 million; reducing
overtime work and part-time hiring $0.7 million; staff positions
will be reduced by approximately l25 FTE, $3.3 million; and
faculty positions will be reduced by approximately 95 FTE, $4.l

We will carefully monitor the implementation of the budget
cuts. The Office of Management and Budget, headed by Vice President
Ed Carter, will be charged by me with oversight of the entire effort
and will be charged by me to carefully monitor the cut as the year
goes along to make sure that we are generating the kinds of dollars
we need to meet the recurring budget cut.

We are looking at ourselves in considerable detail through the-
institutional Self-Study process to determine our strengths and
weaknesses and identify ways that we can be more productive and
efficient and to help us plan for our future.

In proposing these budget cuts, I have constantly kept in mind the
educational mission of the University.

- As we complete l99l and prepare to move aggressively into l992,
I want you to know that:

I am strongly committed, as you are, to the three-fold mission
of this university: teaching, research, and service.

I am strongly committed to making decisions that demonstrate
continual progress toward even greater levels of academic
excellence - toward becoming that nationally recognized
university that we all aspire to be.

I am strongly committed to recruit better and better academic
quality students to this campus, graduate and undergraduate,
including those students who have chosen to begin at one of our
community colleges. To be an excellent university, we must have
excellent students.

I will emphasize excellence in teaching university—wide, not at
the expense of research, but to complement research. I believe

that a student-centered university must have instruction of the
highest quality to be an excellent university.


 I will support and nurture and build and defend, when necessary,
the graduate and research programs of this university, the part
of our mission that best distinguishes us from other colleges
and universities in this state. We cannot be a nationally
recognized Research I university without an excellent research
and graduate program.

I am strongly committed to build a new library and an endowment
to support libraries in this university. I know of no better
way to demonstrate our commitment to academic excellence.

I am strongly committed to using our resources, whenever
possible, to serve this commonwealth. We will make the
expertise of our faculty and staff available to help solve the
state's major problems, and we will look for opportunities to
transfer the results of our research to benefit the people of

As a last point, I know that an excellent university cannot
exist without an excellent faculty. By my budget decisions, I want
you to see that I have insisted that we protect the salary gains we
have made to enable us to keep you at this university and to help us
recruit excellent faculty to this institution, during this window of
opportunity, which will pay great dividends for us in the future.

I have an absolutely strong and deeply—held commitment to this
institution and to its future growth and prosperity. You have my
strong support in carrying out your responsibilities as faculty of
this institution. I need your continued strong support as we plan
for l992 and beyond as we confront challenges and opportunities
presented to this great university.

Ladies and gentlemen, it certainly is an honor for me to talk
with you a bit this afternoon about the budget cut and our plans for
implementing the cut. We would prefer to be talking about budget
gains rather than budget cuts, but we have a responsibility to take
this budget cut, manage it in the best way possible for the benefit
of this university and for the protection of its educational
mission. I am convinced that working together we have such a plan
that we will present to the Board of Trustees tomorrow, and I am
convinced that with the efforts of the Chancellors, vice presidents
and deans, the Community College presidents and you as faculty that
we will carry out this budget cut successfully and in a fashion that
is least damaging to the entire University of Kentucky.

Thank you for having me here today, and I will be pleased, after
tomorrow's presentation to the Board of Trustees, to respond to you
about questions of the budget cut and other matters. I simply invite
you today to think about the budget cut, think about the plans that
have been submitted and give me your strong support as we go about
handling the business of the University of Kentucky. We are near the
end of a fall semester and the end of a calendar year. In my opinion
l99l has been an excellent year for the University of Kentucky. I
look forward to an equally good year in l992.


 I wish you a happy holiday season.
The President was given a round of applause.

The Chair thanked the President for the nice clear statement of the
centrality of our missions and that the budget cuts will not deflect from the
strength of our full range of missions.

The Chair recognized Professor Deborah Powell of the Senate Council to
present a Resolution on behalf of the Senate Council. Professor Powell read
the following:


WHEREAS the University of Kentucky is, by law, KRS l64.lOO,
charged with a three—fold mission l) to provide undergraduate,
graduate, and professional education, and 2) by KRS l64.l25(2) to be
the principal state institution for the conduct of basic and applied
research, and 3) to engage in public service, all for the benefit of
the Commonwealth of Kentucky; and,

WHEREAS previous governors, notably Wendell Ford and John Y.
Brown, recognizing the fundamental importance of maintaining the
University's integrity, moved to end the direct involvement of
incumbent governors as voting members of the Board of Trustees: and,

WHEREAS Governor Wallace Wilkinson has violated the spirit and
countervened the intent of these efforts by the unprecedented action
of appointing himself as a member of the Board in the final days of
his administration, and accompanied this action by public statements
that suggest a predetermined program and a consequent unwillingness
to examine and evaluate the operations of this University in a wisely
critical way:


l. Reaffirm their commitment to outstanding teaching and
research which are integral and inseparable components of the
education of our undergraduate, graduate, and professional students.

Just as research generates new knowledge, so it also provides
deeper appreciation of the subjects of university study through
direct student involvement in research, and further refines the
thought of our students; it is also important for attracting
outstanding new faculty.

2. Accept their mission to make substantial and lasting public
service contributions, thorough research activities, to the health
and welfare of the Commonwealth and its citizens.

At the center of the state university system, the University of
Kentucky seeks to transmit research results through a variety of
public service and outreach programs designed to strengthen the
economic and civic foundations of the Commonwealth.


 3. Request the refusal or recission of the self-appointment of
Governor Wilkinson to the Board of Trustees.

This unprecedented action grossly circumvents expected behavior
by those holding a public trust and would, if not disallowed, corrupt
the democratic processes and principles by which this University, and
indeed this state, proceeds.

4. Call for the complete reform of the process by which
members of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees are selected.

5. Welcome informed criticism of our methods of fulfilling the
mission assigned to us of educating students, developing new
knowledge and providing public service.

Open in spirit and purpose, any university, but particularly a
comprehensive university, must respond to current needs, new
developments, and to all suggestions that would benefit the people we
serve. Thus we willingly accept constructive criticism which helps
us fulfill our mission.

Professor Powell stated that the resolution was offered to the Senate for
consideration and if approved, directed that the faculty representatives to
the Board of Trustees present the resolution to the full Board at its next

The Chair thanked Professor Powell for the resolution. He suggested two
principles: l) that in the comments nothing would be said that might be
construed as diminishing one function of activity or mission as opposed to any

other function or activity. Secondly, the usual prescription that arguments
not be made that might be construed as attacks on the person of any
individual. He added that other than those mild qualifications the floor was
opened for discussion.

Professor Dan Fulks (Business and Economics) stated that he has no problem
with the message in the resolution and he commended the Senate Council for
bringing it before the Senate. His problem with the resolution is that he
feels there are three issues, one of which is personality. Another issue is
defining the mission of the University and perhaps defending the three—fold
mission of the University and the third issue is the self-appointment.
Professor Fulks feels the resolution addresses all three issues. His problem
is with the way the issues have been mixed in the resolution because he feels
the issues are separate. He still has a problem with the self-appointment and
in terms of the University's mission he is sure there has been criticism. He
did not know if it would be appropriate to separate the messages in the
resolution but feels something has been lost in what is needed to be said.

The Chair stated that Professor Fulks made a clear point and he appreciated
the comments.

Professor William Lyons (Arts and Sciences) pointed out a minor technical
point under the second ”WHEREAS” that Wendell Ford was the governor that
stopped the practice of having incumbent governors sit on the Board of
Trustees. He added that John Y. Brown was the governor who took the
opportunity, when dealing with a former governor, to put that person on the
Board as an honorary, non-voting member. He feels the resolution would be
more accurate to say ”direct involvement of incumbent and former governors as


 a voting member ...... " No one had any problem with the editorial change and
the Chair stated that the change would be made. He added that the change
would not in any way discourage the Senate from seeing or encouraging the
appointment of a former governor to the Board at another time. Professor
Lyons stated that the point in the second "WHEREAS” is very clear that
starting in l972 that it was the better part of valor not to involve incumbent
governors and later a practice evolved that it was better not to put former
governors on the Board and what was being discussed is the unusual and
unprecedented act of self-appointment.

There were no further questions or comments. In a hand count the motion
in favor of the resolution carried with one no vote.

The Chair stated that Professor Paul Willis would give a presentation to
help the Senate understand the impact that the new library and library
campaign will have on library services generally at the University.

Professor Willis presented slides and made the following remarks:

What I would like to do is to go over some slides very quickly
to bring you up-to—date on the library project, offer to answer
questions at the end of the presentation, but maybe more importantly
open up the opportunity for you to send to me by E-Mail or by phone
or by regular mail comments about the library and its programming. I
want to point out before we get to the building that we have a
campaign focusing on the collection that is part of this effort. I
am sure I need to thank a number of people in the room today for
making personal contributions to the library campaign. I don't see
the donation cards. They are going directly to the Development
Office. I run the risk of owing people thanks and not knowing about
it, but the campaign has been unbelievably successful so far and we
are very pleased with that. The University of Tennessee, several
years ago when they got and NEH Challenge Grant and built an
endowment as they were getting ready to build their new library, had
a family campaign very much like ours, and they raised money for the
building and for the endowment. They got participation at the level
of 65 percent, but they only raised something like $250,000. The
last figure I saw shows us in the range of nine or ten percent
participation, and we are approaching one-half million dollars in
terms of the library campaign. Professor Swift and a number of you
here are helping individually with that effort, and we really
appreciate that. I think it makes a very strong message to the
General Assembly and to private donors who have the capacity to make
major donations.

If you look at the old building, we have books shelved on l5 to
l7 different levels. We also have 12 different service points in
that facility. I think the thing which is unique about our current
project is that we are starting over as opposed to tacking on another
addition to the King buildings. People sometimes say, "Why don't you
simply rearrange services in that building to make them more
efficient?“ The green stacks that are in the oldest part of the King
South Building, in addition to being the ugliest shade of green on
campus, are fixed stacks. The way libraries were built in the 20's,


 rather than go in and build floors and set shelving on them, it was
thought that it was more efficient to let the shelving hold up the
building and so that is the way the old building is constructed.

That adds a great deal of economy from a construction point of view,
but it gives you maximum inflexibility, and we are faced with the
stacks running for eight levels. It would simply be too expensive, I
think, to go in and try to change that.

We are out of space in the North building for materials. We get
the opportunity occassionally to add special collections, and we
don't have a place to put them. I have had more than one donor tell
me, ”If you are going to put that in a cave, I think I'll just keep
it in my basement.” The lack of space in the buildings handicaps the
addition of private unique materials to the library. In addition to
having twelve service points in the main building we have library
facilities in at least l4 different buildings on campus. When we go
home tonight, if we want full library service, we have to staff l2
places in the King buildings and l4 separate branch locations. When
you look at the cost to build a new library, it's probably over time
less the one-time expenditure that you make in a new building that is
significant than the recurring operating costs that come with trying
to operate a library system the way we do. In addition to personnel
duplication you end up with some duplication of collections in this
area. [Professor Willis showed a slide of the Math Library and the
Geology Library where the map collection backs up to a radiator.]

You can imagine what that does to the life expectancy of that paper
over time. ’

Some people wonder why we moved materials to the cave at
Highbridge. We had some materials stored in the Reynolds Building.
I got a call one day and the person on the other end of the phone
said, ”Would you be upset if we threw some of your material out by
mistake." Rather than answer I walked over and we immediately set
about to find some other storage for library materials and that is
why we moved part of the collection to Highbridge. It is an
interesting place. If you have not been there, none of our materials
sits on the floor. The temperature is ideal. They dehumidify the
area where our materials are stored. The boxes are numbered, and
they run a shuttle service back and forth usually weekly, but they
will do it as often as we are willing to pay for it.

Our new Central and Life Sciences Library proposal impacts the
main library. Basically we are talking about relocating the main
library services out of the King buildings into a new building and
bringing into that facility some parts of the collection for the
Medical Center, College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences. That
is phase I of our program. If we stay on track, we can conceivably
open in the Fall l995. Those are the only libraries that the first
phase of the proposal impacts.

What we would bring out of the Medical Center Library,
Agriculture and Biological Sciences will be delayed by working
faculty from those areas. You get consensus very quickly that you
don't need rare books in the Medical Library. Those can be housed


 somewhere else. There are varying levels of disagreement as you go
down to what you do with current journals and reference materials.
We plan to reach those decisions in consultation with the faculty.

Faith Harders is handling the programming for the building. We
have not reached any decisions about the building that I think are
controversial at this stage. We are working with the Senate Library
Committee, and it has representation from every college and several
members from some colleges, and I think the discussions this year are
going along rather nicely. The University has done one thing that I
think distinguishes this project from a lot of others. They gave us
some money to use the services of the University architect in terms
of working on the programming. I think that will keep us from making
some mistakes that we sometimes make around here with other
buildings. We are looking for a building that will be significant
from an architectural point of view; we are looking at a functional
arrangement from the patron's perspective. If you look at the
historical literature on how to design a library building, it starts
with the mail truck bringing books and journals in the back door and
then the patron taking them out the front door. The building is
organized the way the material flows through the building from a
processing point of view. We want to reverse that and look at the
whole issue from the patron at the front door wanting a piece of
information and then arranging the building from that particular
perspective. That may sound insignificant, but if you tell that to
an architect who is going to lay your building out, I think you will
end up with different buildings if you start with this perspective.
We want total flexibility with the building. We have been looking at
a lot of other libraries, as you would expect, and we found at
Indiana University, for example, that they can house staff in some
parts of the building but not books because the floor load limit is
only 95 pounds per square foot. They can have shelving in other
areas and compact shelving generally just at the basement level. We
want a building that will take the different kinds of library
functions on all floors. That is very critical in terms of
flexibility. We probably want a building that is not over five
levels. We want, if possible, the entry level to be on the middle
level. We don't want l2 service points. At least we don't want to
have to operate l2 service points at l0:00 at night. We want to be
able to arrange it in a cost effective way from a public services
point of view; not only from a staffing point of view, but from the
patron's point of view in not having to go to six different places to
find something. If you want something as simple as a journal article
in King, you may have to go to six places before you could leave the
building with the latest issue or copy from a journal. We want to
minimize duplicate processing, and we want to maximize the use of
compact shelving as opposed to utilizing remote storage permanently.
This varies a little with what is happening at some