xt74tm71zg1v https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt74tm71zg1v/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1970-02-09 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, February 9, 1970 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 9, 1970 1970 1970-02-09 2020 true xt74tm71zg1v section xt74tm71zg1v

4%
ﬁr
L
l
IP
I
,.

WL.

41‘

ﬁg}; ”“VK .u‘W" F: r—~.n‘a(——~A ~"—
1 i

\. Ax:

_. , >,..’,Ja__ (h, _. ,__..

(-5

)

/-‘)‘
f

Minutes of the University Senate, January 12, 1970

The Chairman announced that the next meeting of the Senate will be a
special meeting to be held on January 26, 1970 and that an item on the
agenda will be the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Appropriate Balance
Among Teaching, Research and Service Functions in the University.

The Senate adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY 9, 1970

The University Senate met in regular session at 4:00 p.m., Monday, w
February 9, 1970, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Plucknett j: H

presided. Members absent: ., J

Robert Aug*, Harry V. Barnard, Richard C. Birkebak, Ben W. Black*, Barry J.
Bloomfield, Thomas 0. Blues*, Wallace N. Briggs*, Donald B. Coleman*, Robert

L. Cosgriff*, Alfred L. Crabb, Jr., Eugene C. Crawford, Jr.*, William H. Dennen*,
Henry F. Dobyns, Ronald W. Dunbar*, W. W. Ecton*, Joseph Engelberg, Frank J. Essene,
Frederic J. Fleron, Jospeh B. Fugate*, Jess L. Gardner*, James L. Gibson, Stephen
M. Gittleson*, B. R. Gossick, Halbert E. Gulley*, Holman Hamilton*, Denny 0.

Harris, Dorothy Hollingsworth*, J. W. Hollingsworth*, Alfred S. L. Hu, William

H. Jansen*, Louis J. Karmel, Donald E. Knapp*, James A. Knoblett*, Carl E.
Langenhop*, Richard S. Levine*, Albert S. Levy*, John H. Lienhard*, Mark M.
Luckens*, Gene L. Mason, Leonard McDowell*, William G. Moody*, Jacqueline A.
Noonan*, Louis A. Norton*, Blaine F. Parker*, Albert W. Patrick*, Doyle E.

Peaslee, Robert W. Penman, Curtis Phipps*, Nicholas J. Pisacano*, Muriel A.

Poulin*, Leonard A. Ravitz*, John W. Roddick*, John W. Schaefer*, Ian Shine*,

Robert Straus*, William G. Survant*, Norman L. Taylor, Timothy H. Taylor*,

Duane N. Tweeddale, H. Fred Vetter*, Jesse L. Weil*, David R. Wekstein*,

David C. White, Daniel W. Wingard, Donald J. Wood*, Lawrence A. Allen, Charles

E. Barnhart, Glenwood L. Creech, George W. Denemark*, Stuart Forth, Charles

P. Graves, Jack B. Hall, Joseph Hamburg, Ellis F. Hartford, Raymon D. Johnson*,
William S. Jordan, Jr.*, Joseph L. Massie*, Alvin L. Morris, John C. Robertson*, I
George J. Ruschell, Sheryl G. Snyder, Joseph V. Swintosky*, William R. Willard*. ‘

The Senate approved the requests of Mr. George Jepson of theKernel to
attend and report, and of Mr. Leo Juarez, graduate student, in his role as
an aide to the ad hoc Committee on Appropriate Balance Among Teaching, Research
and Service.

The minutes of the regular meeting of January 12, 1970 were approved as
circulated.

In the absence of Dr. Cochran, Dr. Herbert P. Riley presented a re-
commendation that honorary degrees be conferred on seven persons (three
having been recommended and approved by the Senate and Board of Trustees in
prior years, but for one reason or another were unable to receive the award)
at the May 1970 Commencement. The Senate approved the four new persons
for the Doctor of Laws as presented for recommendation to the President and

*Absence explained

Minutes of the University Senate, February 9, 1970

the Board of Trustees with the request to the press that the names be with—
held until the Board has taken action and the nominees have accepted.

On behalf of the Senate Council and with its recommendation, Dr. Ford,
Secretary of the Council, recommended the adoption of the proposed changes
in the Proposed Revision of the Governing Regulations — Copy Number IV
(approved by the University Senate at its reconvened meeting of May 6,

1969 and transmitted to the Joint Faculty—Board Committee on Governing
Regulations). The proposed changes in the approved Proposed Revision were
circulated to the faculty under date of January 23, 1970. In general, these
proposed changes deal with termination of appointments of faculty, procedures
to be followed in cases of dismissal of faculty, academic freedom of non—
tenured faculty, and termination of appointment of graduate and teaching
assistants. '

Following discussion, an amendment was introduced to change the first sentence
under replaced section 4, page 60, to read:

Part—time, visiting or temporary short—term appointments with
explicit terminal dates of one academic year or less, terminate at
the expiration of the term without notice.

The Senate approved this amendment.

A further amendment was presented to add the following additional sentence
to the end of replaced section 4, page 60, to read:

. . .The written notice of termination of appointment for non—
tenured personnel will include a reasonable statement of the reasons
for non—reappointment. -

The Senate defeated this amendment.

The Senate then approved the original recommendation, as amended, for
transmittal to the Joint Faculty Board Committee on Governing Regulations
for incorporation in the Proposed Revision of Governing Regulations. The
proposed changes, as amended and approved by the Senate, are as follows:

Insert after first sentence:

Page 59, B. 2:

Except as provided in section X, C. 7, time spent on leave of
absence shall count as probationary period service unless the
University in granting the leave and the individual in accepting it,
agree to the contrary.

Page 60: Replace section 4 as follows:

4. Notification of Termination: Non—Tenure Appointments

Part—time, visiting or temporary short-term appointments with
explicit terminal dates of one academic year or less, terminate at
the expiration of the ternlwithout notice. For those employed

';'1~-‘.,... ... ....--- ..

Minutes of the University Senate, February 9, 1970

year—to-year on a fiscal or academic year basis, notification of
termination of employment at the end of the first year of service
shall be given not later than March 1 if the appointment expires

_i§5 at the end of that year or three months in advance if the one—
A year appointment terminates during the academic year. Notification EV
service shall be given no later than December 15 if the appoint—

ment expires at the end of that year of six months in advance
if the appointment expires during the year. Notification of
termination of appointment after more than two years of service
shall be given at least 12 months before expiration of the
appointment. Notice of termination of appointment of those on
post—retirement appointment shall be no less than six months.

64
J%? of termination of appointment at the end of the second year of
t
F
l
7
1

1 Page 61: Replace section 5 as follows:

renew. -cj-gdagg 4.... . . .

5. Termination of Appointment

, a. Reasons for Termination

ht Except in cases of financial emergency, the termination ii 4

of a tenure appointment or the dismissal of a person prior to :1 i

“ the expiration of a non—tenure appointment shall, in accordance 1%

‘ with KRS 164.230, be only for reasons of ”incompetency, neglect
of or refusal to perform his duty, or for immoral conduct."

In the instance of termination because of a financial
emergency the faculty member may have the issues reviewed
( by the University Senate Advisory Committee on Privilege

and Tenure with the right of appeal to the President and
Board of Trustees. The faculty member shall be given
notice as soon as possible and never less than 12 months'
3 notice. The released faculty member's place shall not
1 be filled by a replacement within a period of two years,
[ unless the released faculty member has been offered re—
appointment and a reasonable time within which to accept or
*Q‘ decline it.

, b. Procedure

Dismissal of a faculty member with continuous tenure or of
a non-tenured member before the end of his specified term of
appointment shall be preceded by discussions between the faculty
member and an appropriate administrative officer or officers
looking toward a mutual settlement. In the event of failure
to arrive at an agreed upon settlement the President shall be
responsible for the preparation of a reasonably particularized
statement of charges which shall be furnished to the faculty
member and the University Senate Advisory Committee on Privilege
and Tenure. The committee shall make an informal investigation
for the purpose of attempting to effect an adjustment and, in the
case of failure, to recommend to the President whether, in its
opinion, dismissal proceedings should be undertaken. Its opinion

shall not be binding upon the President.

2882
Minutes of the University Senate, February 9, 1970

If the President initiates dismissal proceedings, the individ-
ual concerned shall have the right to be heard initially by a
University Senate ad_hgg Hearing Committee (Privilege and

Tenure).

The faculty member shall be informed in writing by the
President of the specific charges against him at least twenty
days prior to the hearing. At least seven days prior to the
hearing, the faculty member must answer the charges in writing.
The faculty member may waive the hearing. If he waives the
hearing, but denies the charges against him or asserts that the
charges do not support a finding of adequate cause, the hearing
tribunal shall evaluate all available evidence and rest its re—
commendation upon the evidence in the record.

The committee, in consultation with the President and the
faculty member, will exercise its judgment as to whether the
hearing should be public or private. During the proceedings
the faculty member will be permitted to have an academic advisor
and counsel of his choice. At the request of either party or ‘
the hearing committee, a representative of a responsible I
educational association shall be permitted to attend the pro— ”
ceedings as an observer. A full stenographic record of the {
hearing or hearings will be taken and made available to the 1
parties concerned. The burden of proof that adequate cause f
exists rests with the institution, and shall be satisfied only
by clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as
a whole. If the faCulty member's competence is in question, 6
the testimony should include that of qualified faculty members I
from this and/or other institutions of higher education. i

Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the committee shall report
to the President that adequate cause for dismissal has or has
not been established, by the evidence in the record. It may,
in addition, recommend that, although adequate cause for dismissal
has been established, an academic penalty less than dismissal
would be more appropriate, giving supporting reasons for the
recommendation. If the President rejects the report, he will ;
state his reasons in writing to the committee and to the faculty
member, and provide an opportunity for response before transmitting l
the case to the Board of Trustees.

A decision adverse to the faculty member may be made only
after an opportunity for an additional hearing before the Board
of Trustees as required by KRS 164.230. The Board will either .
sustain the recommendations of the committee and the President
or return the proceedings to the President and the committee
with specific objections. The committee will then reconsider,
taking into account the stated objections and receiving new
evidence if necessary. The Board of Trustees will make
the final decision after a study of the committee's reconsideration.

‘ w N. g...

Minutes of the University Senate, February 9, 1970

c. Suspensions

Until the final decision upon termination of an appointment
has been reached, the faculty member will be suspended, or assigned
to other duties in lieu of suspension, only if immediate harm
to himself or others is threatened by his continuance. Before
suspending a faculty member, pending an ultimate determination
of his status through the hearing machinery, the President
will consult with the University Senate Advisory Committee on
Privilege and Tenure. Salary will continue during the period
of suspension.

Pages 61—63: Replace section 6 as follows:

6. Academic Freedom of Nontenured Faculty

If a faculty member on a non—tenure appointment or a member on
post—retirement appointment alleges that a decision not to reappoint him
was caused by considerations violative of academic freedom, or that he
was given less advance notice than that specified in these regulations,
his allegations shall be given preliminary consideration by the
University Senate Advisory Committee on Privilege and Tenure, which will
seek to settle the matter by informal methods. His statement shall
be accompanied by a statement that he agrees to the presentation, for
the consideration of the Senate committees, of such reasons and evidence
as the University may allege in support of its decision. If the
difficulty is unresolved at this stage, and if the committee so recommends,
the procedures set forth in 5 (b) shall be applied, except that the
faculty member making the complaint is responsible for stating the
grounds upon which he bases his allegations, and the burden of proof
shall rest upon him. If he succeeds in establishing a prima facie
case, it is incumbent upon those who made the decision not to re—
appoint him to come forward with evidence in support of their
decision.

Page 63: Replace section 8 as follows:

8. Administrative Personnel

Administrative personnel who hold academic rank are subject to
the foregoing regulations in their capacity as faculty members. Where
an administrator alleges that a consideration violative of academic
freedom significantly contributed to a decision to terminate his appointment
to his administrative post, or not to reappoint him, he shall be entitled
to the same procedures as nontenured faculty who have alleged violation

of academic freedom.

Replace section 10 as follows:

Page 63:

10. Graduate Student Academic Staff

In no case shall an appointment of a graduate or teaching assistant
be terminated before the end of the period of appointment without the in—
dividual being provided with the opportunity to be heard before the
University Senate Advisory Committee on Privilege and Tenure.

Minutes of the University Senate February 9, 1970

Likewise a graduate or teaching assistant who has established
a prima facie case to the satisfaction of the committee that a con—

sideration violative of academic freedom significantly contributed (45
to the non—reappointment shall be given a statement of reasons by ﬂ?
those responsible for the non—reappointment and an opportunity "

to be heard by the committee.

Add the following section:

11. In no case shall a member of the academic staff who is not
otherwise protected by the preceding regulations which relate to
dismissal proceedings be dismissed (termination before the end of a
period of appointment) without having been provided with a statement
of reasons and an opportunity to be heard before the University
Senate Advisory Committee on Privilege and Tenure.

Likewise a member of such an academic staff who establishes a
prima facie case to the satisfaction of the University Senate Advisory
Committee on Privilege and Tenure that a consideration violative
of academic freedom significantly contributed to his non—reappointment
shall be given a statement of reasons by those responsible for the
non—reappointment and an opportunity to be heard by the committee.

Add the following section 12: (This is section 10 now
existing on Page 64)

12. Change of Assignment

When it is to the best interests of the institution, and if the
professional status of an individual is not seriously jeopardized
thereby, a change in the duties assigned to an individual may be
made without such a change of assignment being regarded as a violation
of his tenure rights.

Page 73: Change last line to read:

Current reading:

The leave shall not affect unfavorably the tenure status of a
faculty member except that the time spent on such leave from academic
duties does not count as probationary service.

Change to:

” ..... duties will not count as probationary service unless

otherwise agreed to."

On behalf of the Senate Council and with its recommendation Dr. Ford
recommended the adoption of the proposed change in the Rules_9f the University Senate
(Revised and Updated July, 1969). The proposed change had been circulated
to the faculty under date of January 23, 1970. These changes involve L
expanding the role of the Senate Advisory Committee on Privilege anduTenure Egk
to cover hearings on cases of dismissal and also establishes a Senate Hearing r
Panel to deal with cases of dismissal.

in W--_-._:.%_mﬂmﬁm— -___._g%i —-— www— ~

"Vi-h . ,
:au,....,_....--..,. x ..

Minutes of the University Senate, February 9, 1970

The Senate approved the recommendation as presented for transmittal to the
Rules Committee for incorporation into the Rules. These changes as approved d
£5 for inclusion in the Rules, read as follows: f.ﬁ

-‘H-¥ ﬂ,l-a-..__ ~45

10. The University Senate Advisory Committee on Privilege and
Tenure is charged with giving preliminary consideration to the following ‘ ﬂ
matters as referred to it by the President, the University Senate, or ; ?
individual staff members of the University: cases of appointment termination 3 g;
for cause of a faculty member who has tenure; cases of dismissal of a 5
faculty member during a limited appointment; cases of nonrenewal of a
probationary appointment with less advance notice than specified by the
Governing Regulations; cases of allegation by a faculty member on a
non-tenure appointment that a decision for non—reappointment violates
his academic freedom as a faculty member; cases of allegation by a
University administrator that.a decision to terminate his appointment
to his administrative post, or not to reappoint him, violates his {i.;

academic freedom; cases of termination of a tenure appointment, or the
dismissal of a person prior to expiration of a non-tenure appointment,
because of a financial emergency; and all similar cases. The function ‘
of the committee in all such cases is to attempt to effect an adjustment 1, k
and, in cases of failure, to recommend to the President action to be 3
taken.

The committee may, upon request, advise individual staff members
on the interpretation of University privilege and tenure regulations, with
copies of the interpretations being sent to the University Senate Council,
the Chairman of the Department, the Dean, and the President.

“3)
#7.
I
t
7
1
|
r
( The committee also may consider allegations of a faculty member
who believes that his privilege as a scholar has been abridged or abused.
The faculty member should address a statement to the chairman of the committee
setting forth in detail the reasons why he believes his privilege has been
( abused. The committee will review the statement and determine whether
conditions warrant further investigation. Upon investigation the committee
[ will make recommendations to the faculty member and file a copy with the
. President. Recommendations may be made also to the President with a copy

ﬁwv sent to the faculty member.

The committee is also charged with making a continuing study of
privilege and tenure regulations, making recommendations to the University f

Senate.

University Senate Hearing Panel (Privilege and Tenure)

A University Senate Hearing Panel of fifteen members shall be
appointed for staggered three year terms by the President from a list of
nominees recommended by the Senate Council. From this panel an ad hoc
Hearing Committee shall be chosen to hear a case arising from dismissal
of a faculty member with continuous tenure or of a non-tenured member
before the end of his specified term of appointment, or of one arising
from allegation of the violation of the academic freedom of a nontenured
faculty member or of an administrator. This committee shall consist of
5 members chosen by lot from that panel. A member shall remove himself
from a case, either at the request of a party or on his own initiative
if he deems himself disqualified for bias or interest. Each party shall

late

2886 Minutes of the University Senate, February 9, 1970

have a maximum of 2 challenges without stated cause. If the panel
should be exhausted before an acceptable committee has been obtained,
5 supplementary members shall be appointed to the panel by the same
procedure from which members of the committee may be selected. The
committee shall select its own chairman.

The committee will conduct the hearing and report its findings
as described in the Governing Regulations, Section X, B, 5, b. In
addition the committee will adhere to the following procedures:

1. The faculty member will be afforded an opportunity to obtain
necessary witnesses and documentary or other evidence, and the administration
will, in so far as it is possible for it to do so, secure the cooperation
of such witnesses and make available necessary documents and other
evidence within its control.

2. The faculty member and the administration will have the
right to confront and cross—examine all witnesses. Where the witness
cannot or will not appear, but the committee determines that the interests
of justice require admission of his statement, the committee will identify
the witness, disclose his statement and if possible provide for inter—
rogatories.

3. The hearing committee will not be bound by strict rules of
legal evidence, and may admit any evidence which is of probative value
in determining the issues involved. Every possible effort will be made
to obtain the most reliable evidence available.

4. The hearing committee will grant adjournments to enable either
party to investigate evidence as to which a valid claim of surprise
is made.

5. The findings of fact and the decision will be based solely
on the hearing record.

6. Except for such simple announcements as may be required,
covering the time of the hearing and similar matters, public state—
ments and publicity about the case by either the faculty member
or administrative officers will be avoided so far as possible until
the proceedings have been completed, including consideration by the
Board of Trustees.

On behalf of the Senate Council, Dr. Ford recommended that the Senate
accept the Report of the ad hoc Committee on Appropriate Balance Among
the Teaching, Research and Service Functions in the University, and that
it be transmitted to the President of the University upon acceptance by
the Senate. The Report had been circulated to the faculty by the Senate
Council under date of January 28, 1970.
Amendment was introduced to place a period after the word "assignments"
in line 3, arabic 5) on page 20 of the Report, and strike the remainder
of that paragraph. The Senate approved this amendment.

“ "-: -.-. ..u...-...- -_.,.. V.- ,- . ..,. .. 7.

Minutes of the University Senate, February 9, 1970

The Chairman then interrupted the discussion of the Report to permit
President Singletary, who had entered the meeting, to address the Senators.
The Chairman recommended that the Senate meet on February 16, 1970 at 4:00
p.m. to continue its discussion of the Report, and the Senate approved
this recommendation.

Following is the text of President Singletary's presentation.

At the time I asked to have a few minutes with you this afternoon
I did not know that a meeting of the Council on Public Higher Education
was being scheduled in Louisville, from which we have just returned. I
apologize for coming in this late and will try to make my remarks as
brief as I possibly can.

It is my intention to talk to you about some of the issues that are
before us, or that are before the Legislature that have to do with us,
and to give you a progress report about where these matters stand. I
think they are matters that have some concern for the institution, and
it seemed to me, now that the Session is something over a month old, it
might be worthwhile for us to take stock.

When I talked to you right after the beginning of the school year, I
mentioned a number of things that I said I thought would come up in this
legislative session, and indeed a number of them have. I will very briefly
mention them and say something about their status.

I would begin by talking about the Community College situation. As
you know, sometime ago there was a consultants' report that was presented
to the Council on Public Higher Education as a result of a rather intensive
study of the Community College situation in Kentucky. A number of re-
commendations are in that report. I won't attempt to belabor them but
I will say that from the very beginning my concern was that this report
had a ”drift” to it that I thought needed very careful examination, the
drift being that while everybody would agree that our Community Colleges
have some very serious problems, the solution to these problems will
come simply from transferring them from one administrative structure to
another. I have never believed that. I do not believe it now.

After reading the report, we met with the Directors and the members
of the Advisory Committees from the various Community Colleges, and to the
charges of absentee landlordism, gt_cetera, we have repeatedly taken the position
which is, fundamentally, that we would feel a lot better if the community
colleges say they are being mistreated, rather than the visiting dignitaries.
Indeed, one of the strongest things in favor of some continuation of the
present arrangement, at least at the moment, is that it is nearly the unanimous
View of the community colleges that they would prefer to stay within this

system.

I said further that I think the problems in the Community College
System, in terms of lack of full scale programs, §t_cetera —— the same
problem all institutions in the state face —— do not result from ad—
ministrative structure or lack of sympathy or concern but from shortage
of resources in dollars. It is my view that until the state puts those
resources into the community colleges, we will have to continue to build
programs as slowly as we have. It will not matter, in my judgment, what
kind of administrative superstructure they have. For instance, nobody

Minutes of the University Senate, February 9, 1970

is going to create a series of comprehensive community colleges in this

state without a great deal more being done than has been done up to now.

It is my View, as of this moment —— and I may read tomorrow morning's

‘ 1 paper and find out just how wrong I am —— that probably no legislation

‘ is going to be introduced in this Session along that line; and, to I

the degree that this is true, I think it is true because the community

colleges have made known to the Legislature their own preferences and l

wishes. At any rate, I would be the first to say that anything can happen. ?
f

['1 f ‘ We have a long way to go —- and so this is a box score in about the
' third inning.

A second problem is that of the organization, at the state level, of /
higher education in Kentucky. There are several Bills now before the
Legislature and they are quite different. One is the so-called Superboard
.- with the concept of it being named a Board of Regents for the state, having
"i; a very strong Chancellor at the head of the System, and with specific and
‘ strong powers of centralized authority in that Board. There is, I think, a

great deal to be concerned about in whatever direction we choose to go. I l

have tried, again, to say to them, as I have said to you —- and will con— dﬁg’

tinue to say —— that there are two, rather than one, interests involved; W”
\

that we should not let the pressure of dollars and of economy, as well
as other things, blind us to the fact that there are two problems. The K
problem that all are concerning themselves with is the obvious one of
the public interest, and, indeed, they have the right to do that; but

I have the feeling that not much attention is being paid to the concept
of preserving a kind of autonomy for the institutions that will con-
tinue to make it possible for them to do what they have been created

to do and what they are uniquely fitted to do. My position up to now
has been that I would favor a strengthening of the present Council

on Public Higher Education and delegate to it specific coordinating [
functions, as opposed to governing functions. I think the governing

functions —— the internal operation of the institutions -- should re- l
main in the hands of the Boards of Trustees or Regents and that the proper {
function for a state—level Board is that of coordination and of concern
with statewide planning and these kinds of functions. I do not know

how the legislation will go. There is quite a bit of talk now and I

think it is going to be a matter of touch and go. I will say to you

that it is a problem that we, as an institution, and you as faculty
members of this institution, should not be oblivious to or indifferent
toward, because the kind of structure that is created and the specific
authority that is granted to it will have a direct effect on the way

we are able to conduct our business and, indeed, on what decisions we

are going to be allowed to make in the years ahead.

A third issue that is far from settled is one that has been
much in the Press in my time here —— that having to do with the University
of Louisville and its entrance into the state system. There are two
separate issues involved: one has to do with dollars, and the other
with authorization. I think the dollars issue is, at least temporarily
settled as part of the budget bill. The University of Louisville
was, I think, receiving something in the vicinity of six million
dollars in state funds prior to this Session. The Executive budget
added two million to that, and subsequent legislation asked for an
eleven million dollar addition of which I believe five million has

r’
J:
I
i‘

'i'l*-.. . . .
.K...,.r4,.._.-._.,. u...“ .,, —..

Minutes of the University Senate, February 9, 1970

been generally agreed upon. In the Bill that now stands I think the total
state dollars for the University of Louisville will be something in the

l vicinity of 13 million dollars. We have had no public position about
egg! this nor have we objected to this in any way. I think this is a political ‘
if“ problem in the largest s