xt7mcv4bpk7p https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7mcv4bpk7p/data/mets.xml Lexington, Kentucky University of Kentucky 20000719 minutes English University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2000-07-sep19. text Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2000-07-sep19. 2000 2011 true xt7mcv4bpk7p section xt7mcv4bpk7p
AGENDA
Meeting of the Board of Trustees
-University of Kentucky
1:00 P.M.
September 19, 2000
Invocation
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes - (Consent)
Nomination of Officers and Executive Committee
President's Report and Action Items
PR 1 President's Report to the Trustees
A. Biomedical Biological Sciences Research Building
B. Agriculture Animal Science Facilities - Woodford County Farm
PR 2 Personnel Actions
PR 3 Central Administration
A. Proposed Amendments to the Governing Regulations
B. Change in University of Kentucky Retirement Plan
C. Proposed Amendment to the Governing Regulations
PR 4 Community College System (No items to report)
PR 5 Lexington Campus
A. Renaming the Center for Entrepreneurship the Douglas J. Von Allmen
Center for Entrepreneurship and E-Commerce - (Consent)
B. Naming the School of Accountancy the Douglas J. Von Allmen School
of Accountancy - (Consent)
PR 6 Medical Center
A. Master of Science in Physician Assistant Studies
Finance Committee
1. Acceptance of Audit Report for the University of Kentucky for 1999-00
2. 2000-01 Budget Revisions
3. Aluminum Industries' Gifts and Pledges
4. Anonymous Pledges of $5,000,000 and S25,000
S. Carden/Mason Professorship Gifts
6. Carol Martin Gatton Gift
7. Charles S. Cassis Gift
8. Earl F. Lockwood Gift and Pledge
9. Estate of Hazel J. Hieronymus
10. Harry, Steve and Craig Jones Gift and Pledge
11. James F. Glenn, M.D. Gift
12. KIH Online Pledge
13. Michael H. Baker and William J. Gallion Gift
14. Miller and Wrenn Families Gift and Pledge
15. Philip Morris, Inc. Gift
16. Thomas C. and Evelyn W. Finnie Gift
17. Warren W. Rosenthal Pledge
18. Agreement Between University of Kentucky and Kentucky Healthcare Enterprise, Inc.
19. Settlement of Boundary Dispute Robinson Forest Little Caney Tract
20. A Resolution of the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky Declaring Official
Intent with Respect to Reimbursement of Temporary Advances Made for Capital
Expenditures to be Made From Subsequent Borrowings; and Taking Other Actions
in Connection Therewith
21. A Resolution of the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky Authorizing the
Issuance of $29,870,000 of University of Kentucky Consolidated Educational Buildings
Revenue Bonds, Series Q, Dated October 15, 2000
Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky, Tuesday,
September 19, 2000.
The Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky met at 1:00 p.m. (Lexington time)
on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 in the Board Room on the 18th floor of Patterson Office Tower.
A. Meeting Opened
Billy Joe Miles, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m., and the invocation
was pronounced by Ms. Marian Sims.
B. Roll Call
The following members of the Board of Trustees answered the call of the roll: Governor
Edward T. Breathitt, Mr. Paul W. Chellgren, Mrs. Marianne Smith Edge, Mr. James Glenn III,
Mr. Merwin Grayson, Mr. John "Jack" Guthrie, Dr. Loys L. Mather, Dr. Robert P. Meriwether,
Mr. Billy Joe Miles (Chairman), Dr. Elissa Plattner, Mr. Steven S. Reed, Dr. Daniel R. Reedy,
Mr. C. Frank Shoop, Ms. Marian Sims, Ms. Alice Sparks, Dr. W. Grady Stumbo, Ms. JoEtta Y.
Wickliffe, Mr. Billy B. Wilcoxson, Mr. Russell Williams and Ms. Elaine Wilson. The
University administration was represented by President Charles T. Wethington, Jr.; Chancellor
Elisabeth Zinser; Vice Presidents Fitzgerald Bramwell, Joseph T. Burch, Ben W. Carr, Edward
A. Carter, and George DeBin; Dr. Juanita Fleming, Special Assistant for Academic Affairs; Mr.
Larry Ivy, Director of Athletics, and Mr. Richard E. Plymale, General Counsel.
Members of the various news media were also in attendance. A quorum being present,
the Chairperson declared the meeting officially open for the conduct of business at 1:03 p.m.
C. Consent Agenda
Mr. Miles noted that the consent agenda consisted of the following three items:
Approval of Minutes
PR 5A - Renaming the Center for Entrepreneurship the Douglas J. Von Allmen
Center for Entrepreneurship and E-Commerce
PR 5B - Naming the School of Accountancy the Douglas J. Von Allmen School
of Accountancy
Dr. Stumbo moved approval of the Consent Agenda. The motion, seconded by Mr.
Shoop, carried. (See PR 5A and PR 5B at the end of the Minutes.)
D. Nomination of Officers and Executive Committee
Dr. Plattner, Chairperson of the Nominating Committee, stated that the Nominating
Committee met at the Governor's Conference of Trustees in Bowling Green to review the
nominations received from the Board members via mail. She requested that the Chairman turn
the Chairmanship over to another Board member while the names were read. Mr. Miles called
upon Mr. Shoop to preside and receive the report of the Nominating Committee. Mr. Shoop
asked Dr. Plattner to give her report.
- 2 -
Dr. Plattner reported that there was a unanimous reading at that meeting to continue the
present officers. She placed the following slate of officers for 2000-2001 in nomination:
Mr. Billy Joe Miles, Chairperson
Mr. Steven Reed, Vice Chairperson
Dr. Daniel Reedy, Secretary
Mr. Shoop called for nominations from the floor. Mr. Williams moved that the
nominations close. Dr. Mather seconded the motion. Mr. Grayson moved approval of the
officers nominated for the Board of Trustees for the year 2000-2001. The motion, seconded by
Dr. Stumbo, carried.
Dr. Plattner noted that the same process was followed with nominations via mail for the
Executive Committee. She reported that the general feeling of the Committee present was that
the Executive Committee would be well served by the following nominations:
Ms. Elaine Wilson
Ms. Alice Sparks
Ms. Marian Sims
Mr. Billy Joe Miles, Chairperson
Mr. Steve Reed, Vice Chairperson
Mr. Shoop called for nominations from the floor. Mr. Guthrie moved that nominations
cease. Dr. Mather seconded the motion. Dr. Plattner moved that these individuals be approved
as the Executive Committee for 2000-2001. The motion, seconded by Dr. Mather, carried.
Dr. Plattner thanked Mr. Glenn for serving on the Executive Committee during the past
year.
E. President's Report to the Board of Trustees (PR 1')
President Wethington called attention to the following items in PR 1:
1. The University of Kentucky announced its $600 million capital campaign on
September 15th. Mr. James W. Stuckert is chairing the campaign. The University has
already raised nearly $318 million in gifts and pledges towards the goal.
2. The University of Kentucky, which includes the Lexington Community College,
began the 2000-01 academic year with an increase in enrollment, the largest in its
history.
3. UK-originated technologies that are licensed generated some $2.8 million in royalties
during 1999-2000. The University currently holds 67 license agreements with
various companies, 12 of which were issued during the past year.
4. The University of Kentucky is represented by eight individuals at this year's Olympic
Games. Nancy Johnson, a UK graduate, has won the first gold medal at the Olympic
Games in Australia.
- 3 -
5. The University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy has once again ranked third in the
nation by U.S. News & World Report.
President Wethington asked the members to read the other items in the report at their
leisure.
F. Biomedical Sciences Research Building (PR LA)
President Wethington said that everyone had read about, heard about, and knows about
the discussion that has occurred concerning the Biomedical Sciences Research Building and the
difference of opinion that exists in terms of its location. He said that he had asked his staff and
the consultants to give a report on the building because he would like to have the Board informed
about the issue. He noted that he had given the Board the written report from the consulting firm
so that they would have that report to refer to whenever they wished. He told the Board that the
presentation would provide information about the process and reminded them that this is an
information item. The location of the building is an administrative decision. The administration
hears from faculty, staff, and others in regard to a decision like this, but by regulation this is a
decision that is made by the administration of the University. This is an important decision for
the administration. This facility is one that is much needed today. It needs to be built and ready
to open because of the need for research space in the University. The administration has been
moving this project with all due speed. It is a big project, and it is going to take some time to get
it going. Time must not be wasted in making this project a reality.
President Wethington said that George DeBin would begin the presentation which would
be similar to the one made to an open forum that Mr. William Fortune, Chair of the Senate
Council, hosted and also to the committee that was involved in helping plan for academic
programs to go in the facility. The University Architect, Warren Denny, will provide some
information and the Board will hear directly from the consultants. This project was deemed to
be significant enough that the firm chosen to design the building was asked to get involved in the
issue of site location and give their very best advice on where this building could best be placed.
President Wethington asked George DeBin, Vice President for Fiscal Affairs, to begin the
presentation and to involve his staff as he sees fit in making the presentation. He noted that they
would entertain questions and take comments following the presentation.
Mr. DeBin said that he appreciated the opportunity to stand before the Board and provide
a brief overview of the Biomedical Biological Sciences Research Building, or as it is commonly
referred to on campus as the BBSRB, an acronym of higher education. Following his remarks,
Mr. Warren Denny, the University Architect, will relate how the project basically complements
the campus master plan that was developed eight or nine years ago and supported by the Board
by a vote. After Mr. Denny, Mr. George Nielsen, architect and principal in a selected
architectural engineering firm A.M. Kinney, Inc. from Cincinnati, Ohio, and his team will detail
the sites selection findings and their subsequent recommendation. Following Mr. Neilsen, and
with the Chairman's approval, they will answer questions from members of the Board. Through
a series of slides, Mr. DeBin, Mr. Denny and the consultants gave the following presentation.
Mr. Denny introduced Mr. George Nielsen, the leader of the consulting team who
produced the report "Analyses of Site Locations for a New Biomedical Biological Sciences
Research Building."
Mr. Nielsen said the University asked him to briefly describe their process in analyzing
the sites. The project objective was an analysis, and that was their approach. The University had
- 4 -
identified two sites, and they had also said very specifically, "If you see other sites during this
process, bring them into the picture, also." Mr. Nielsen said that they kept an open mind, and as
they went through the analysis, they came to the conclusion that there really were not any other
sites. They, therefore, focused all of their attention on the two sites that had previously been
identified.
He explained that the team assembled is the team of consultants that was hired to do the
design of the building. This team has a lot of campus planning experience, nationally, and it has
also the architectural and engineering experience for these kinds of building types which are
complex, unique and kind of demanding. The team assembled is made up of A.M. Kinney, the
architects and engineers for the project; Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates, Inc, the design
architects who are also renowned planners for university campuses; the laboratory consultant,
which is a firm out of St. Louis that is a nationally renowned firm; Health Education and
Research Associates, Inc., which will do the programming; and ZBA, the mechanical and
electrical engineers, who were selected because of their experience in these kinds of projects.
Mr. Nielsen noted that he is an architect, and David Hollowood is the structural engineer.
Dr. Gordon Jamison is a biotech research scientist and biotech startup consultant who is also a
part of the team. Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates, Inc. were very heavily involved in the
work within the report and are very conversant with all of that information. All of these people
visited the site at least once and met with probably thirty different people. Approximately two-
thirds to three-fourths of the people were in the Medical Center or in the research community and
the others were in the administrative group. He noted that they talked both to researchers in the
Medical Center and administrative people in the Medical Center.
He explained that the analysis criteria used were based on the original charge from the
University to look at all of the factors that they thought should be considered in selecting a site.
They took all of these and came up with five major headings. They assigned different pieces of
the work to different experts within the team, and they all set out to find out as much as they
could about their particular areas of expertise and experience. After they had done all of the
analysis, which consisted of putting together a decision matrix, they took a look at both sites,
relative to interdisciplinary potential, maximizing research space, and the functional and
symbolic potential of the site. These sites were actually rated by everybody individually. They
went through this in a mathematical process so that they could be as objective as possible. All of
the people expressed some concern about the ethics about what they were doing. They knew that
passions were rather high on the two different sites, and they wanted to be strictly objective. He
said that they indicated to him that they intended to be just that way. In the process of looking at
all of these different considerations, the various team members worked on the ones with which
they felt most comfortable in making judgments. They went through a mathematical process that
scored the campus. They looked at all of the different factors relative to campus planning, which
is a major issue. They separated the financial aspects and grouped those at the end. But, they
looked at maximum usable area, bench space, and the best space program that could come out of
it. They looked in particular at the vibration risks, given the information that had been produced
up to this point and factored not only the ambient ones in but the ones associated with
construction which they know can be a problem also during the construction period. They
looked at the utilities because that is a major financial factor, and it is a system on the campus
that must be considered heavily in any kind of a new building project. And finally, they looked
at the finances, demolition, replacement, and relocation costs that were significant. They looked
at utility and capital costs, building capital costs and potential income streams. They had about
twenty-five different items that were looked at. All of the team members of all of the firms went
through a rating process and scored the project. When they were finished, the Virginia Avenue
- 5 -
site scored higher unanimously. This was summarized verbally in the report as are comments on
the various aspects of the two sites. They simply made a recommendation based on that result,
which really confirmed to some degree what they had been developing during the course of the
study. Mr. Nielsen then asked Jamie Kolker, an architect with Venturi Scott Brown, to talk in
detail about the campus planning aspects.
Mr. Kolker said that he is an architect, and Denise Scott Brown and Robert Venturi are
the principals of the architectural firm. Everybody in the office is an architect and also operates
as a planner. He is an architect that also does planning for academic medical centers. Denise
Scott Brown is the one person who is both an architect and a planner, and she has had very much
to do with the report. She has been working for thirty years on campuses all over the country
and most recently at the University of Michigan, where they are doing the comprehensive master
plan for the whole 3,000-acre campus, a precinct of that is their medical center campus and its
various locations of which he was the project manager. He mentioned other relative experiences
that the firm has had and then reviewed their process and analysis, showing how they ended up
with their recommendations based on their experience at the University. Through a series of
slides he provided background information; discussed the interdisciplinary zone with the two
sites that were analyzed, the University Drive site and the Virginia Avenue site; talked about
future expansions; and illustrated potential constraints or opportunities that a site can present in
terms of pedestrian linkages which is so important on an academic medical center and also on the
academic campus.
He noted that the clinical functions have very specific and very different requirements
than research or academic. His slides showed where clinical functions could expand whether it
is ambulatory, clinical research, institutional or disease based. Research could maybe expand
between the Medical Center and the academic core. The University Drive site is bounded
obviously by the MRI, Cancer Research, Women's Health, and the Health Sciences Research
Building. It is a very constricted site. The Virginia Avenue site has more broad reaching
influences and impacts on it. Again, the interdisciplinary zone kind of culminates there. Clinical
research and clinical care could expand further across Limestone into ambulatory or hospital
replacement. The barrier there being Limestone. Those analyses were included in the report and
that led to the influencing factors on site location and site selection for the BBSRB listed in the
report. He said that they tried to meet the charge of how to make the University of Kentucky a
great research public institution/university. Based on the scale of the research, the scale of the
research must increase. The rate of development must increase and the size must increase. That
led them to recommend the Virginia Avenue site because of the potential there for the unknown
and larger scale increments of growth and a larger scale, more high tech building than could exist
on the University Drive site. He said they also feel very strongly that the University Drive site
should be reserved for those functions that really do need to be continuous to the hospital, to
inpatient or to other functions that are clinically based, to the MRI, to the imaging and other
things there. Virginia Avenue has the capacity for the broadly based research and the beginning
of a campus that could be developed there. It is an imageful site. It would be a very prominent
site to really create a new image that reflects the increasing role of research. Medical Center
development is more valuable, in their opinion, for clinical activities. He said that they want to
be careful about being judicious with their recommended use of sites. And with the new patterns
of research, medical education and clinical care provision they really felt that given the
unknowns and given what has changed in the last eight or ten years, it would not be a judicious
use of the University Drive site for the program as it has been presented. The Virginia Avenue
site would better accommodate the new patterns that are developing and the unknown patterns
that have not yet developed.
- 6 -
Mr. DeBin and the team entertained questions from the Board.
Mr. Miles asked Dr. Meriwether, Chairperson of the University Hospital Board, for his
comments.
Dr. Meriwether said the University Hospital will have to be replaced in the next ten
years. There will have to be a new patient tower and clearly that patient tower will have to be in
close proximity to Markey Cancer Center and in close proximity to the MRI Center. All this is
underground; Gamma Knife is underground. The idea of moving all of that over toward Virginia
Avenue is just not feasible. The only place for the University Hospital to go is south toward the
Agriculture School or immediately backwards toward the second site, the University Drive site.
Agriculture can go south as well. There is still plenty of land heading in that direction. In his
opinion, Virginia Avenue is the only place for the building to go. The Hospital Board has been
talking about a replacement tower for beds in the hospital, which is a 27-year old facility. And,
it becomes imperative that you build a new facility as opposed to renovating the old one. He
said he thinks that some of that has been left out in the discussion somewhere along the line. It
has not been as quite as thorough. When you look at the land available to the Medical Center
and the Clinical Research there is no choice about where it goes. It is just not a point of
discussion. You cannot dig up a Gamma Knife, you cannot dig up three MRI scans
underground, and the Markey Cancer Center cannot be relocated.
Dr. Meriwether said there is already talk about the fact that the Biomedical Biological
Sciences Research Building is not adequate, space wise, for the next ten years. They are going to
come back to the Board again and talk about additional space for research. To be a top-twenty
research university, the University must have the building. One of the things that does lend itself
to that is the extra space around Virginia Avenue, plus the fact that you have the KMSF building
immediately across the street that could be converted for research space. This, in his opinion, is
a lot of sound and flurry over nothing because there is not a lot of choice in the matter.
Mr. Shoop said his concern is the political climate, as it is today, in Frankfort. He feels
the University is on the move immensely right now with this first building. He thinks in no time
the University will have a second, a third, maybe even a fourth or fifth building. And this is a
site, in his understanding, that can accommodate that expansion.
Mr. Chellgren said that it appeared that the process has been a fair, comprehensive,
objective one. It is really sort of a short-term convenience versus long-term potential. And it
sounds, based on the facts that were given; that the long-term must outweigh the short-term
convenience issues and that the Virginia Avenue site is the superior one. It is clearly a trade off.
There may be some short-term physical inconvenience to some sections of the institution, but the
long-term advantages of the Virginia Avenue site will clearly outweigh the short-term benefits to
some of the other sites.
Ms. Sparks asked if there was a site preference in Dr. Bramwell's report.
Mr. DeBin replied that when you read the report, it talks about a shared facility, and a
shared facility is a preference toward the University Drive site.
Dr. Bramwell replied that Mr. DeBin was correct.
Ms. Sparks asked about the comments concerning the vibration problem on Virginia
Avenue and if that was addressed in the report.
- 7 -
Mr. DeBin asked Mr. Hollowood, a vibration expert; to comment about the vibration.
Mr. Hollowood explained that there are two types of vibration that have been classified in
the report, an ambient vibration, which is basically site-dependent. There is more ambient
vibration at the Virginia Avenue site due to the railroad and due to the traffic on Limestone.
There is vibration associated with the building that is site-independent due to mechanical
equipment, HVAC equipment, and basic human occupancy, traveling of the halls and that sort of
thing. All those types of things will generate vibration within the building. The ambient
vibration that is associated with the Virginia Avenue site, based on our preliminary investigation,
is not a problem as far as the design of the building based on the criteria that has been given to
them. There has been some additional criteria given, basically what would be considered Class
E equipment. The ones in the criteria that they were given were Class C and D. The E
equipment also would not be a problem to be designed. They are basically just additional
loading criteria much like a snow load, a wind load, or earthquake loads that are all possible to
be designed and handled within that building.
Mr. Hollowood said that the Virginia Avenue site does have additional vibration criteria
that have been investigated. Unfortunately, there is no report done or investigation done on the
University Drive site, so they have no idea what the ambient vibration is on that site.
Mr. Neilsen added that he thinks that the vibration subject is probably the one that needs
more scrutiny in the report. Comments had been made by various people that their criteria has
become more severe than what they had when they did the report. They are talking now about
instrumentation that has a higher level of isolation. And it could be as bad or worse as the
Limestone site. They feel that there should be an additional investigation on the subject in order
to make sure that this is not a showstopper or deal breaker because it could become an issue on
both sites, and that really needs to be looked at very carefully. Their recommendation to the
University at this point is to look at it with more detail, more rigor, and put it to rest in the open
with all the people that are concerned.
Dr. Mather said that it is his understanding that there are types of instruments on use on
the campus in the current research building on University Drive that cannot be used in the Center
on Aging building. When they need to conduct certain kinds of tests, they need to truck their
stuff over to the other building. Apparently the architects are right, a lot of the vibration problem
is from Limestone itself, which he understands is a street that's going to become more heavily
traveled as the state reroutes traffic from the Newtown Pike extension down through Virginia
Avenue. He said that he did not come prepared to talk about this. He did not know until late in
the morning that this was going to be on the agenda. He said he appreciated Mr. Neilson's
comment about getting all the people involved in this. He thinks this is a discussion that ought to
continue. They should hear from some faculty groups and some committees that have been
involved with it. He said that Dr. Bramwell has chaired two committees that unanimously felt
that it ought to be, as he called it, a leveraged building, an added on building. In addition, a
reference was made to the session with the Senate Council. There were approximately 100
people there, and it was primarily populated with folks who themselves will be involved in this
building. The Chair gave the participants there a chance to give a straw vote after listening to the
architects and hearing the questions from the architects. The vote from the folks there was 92 in
favor of University Drive, 2 in favor of Virginia Avenue. And I think that's a perspective that
ought to be heard and to at least hear what those reasons are.
- 8 -
Mr. Hollowood commented that he had no doubt that there are problems that exist
currently and that could be due in fact that many of the buildings in which those instruments are
now were never designed to tune this out. And so they have to go elsewhere. One of the things
that they are charged with is designing the building in such a way that the vibrations will be
mitigated. These things are subject to analysis and to design anticipation and that's what they
intend to do with this project. They are constantly seeing an upping of the requirements insofar
as vibrations are concerned. So, he agreed that they should get into this more deeply and said
that they are not going to be able to solve it until they do have the participation of all the people
that have a vested interest in this aspect.
Mr. Chellgren asked if the Board was second-guessing the administrative decisions and
micromanaging it. Having to provide a hearing for different groups arguing the favor of one side
or another should not be the role of this Board.
Dr. Mather asked, "Then why did we listen today?"
President Wethington replied that the session today was to get the Board acquainted with
the process that the administration has gone through to make the decision. This is the
administrative decision as it is properly focused by the University regulations. If the Board
chooses to override the decisions of the administration, they need to do that today because this
project needs to move on. It is being brought to the Board for information because the Board is
going to be encouraged to get involved in the decision. And, if the Board chooses to do so, his
plea would be to get involved in it today, because the project is going to be delayed by every
month that a final decision about the Biomedical Sciences Research Building location is put off.
Mr. Miles said that he did not feel that the Board should get involved in voting on every
project, but he thinks it has to have due process.
Dr. Reedy commented that this is one of the most expensive buildings that will have been
built on campus other than the W.T. Young Library. And, one of the issues that does bother him,
both from the presentation and from what he heard, is not just an issue of functionality but how
the function of the building has intersections with other functions in the Medical Center Research
areas. The question of interactive functionality is an extremely important one and he did not
consider it to be micromanagement to want to know more about that aspect of it rather than just
the presentation that given today. As a Board member, he had read some of the other documents
but he did not attend the other session. He simply thinks that a couple of weeks to be able to
hear those comments and get a better appraisal is not a bad idea when you are talking about a
$65 million building and what we expect to be the product coming out of that building in
revenue to the University in a couple of years. He certainly does not have his mind made up and
there is a good reason. The judgments and the opinions are not consistent. He would, however,
be certainly glad to support either of these sites after having heard the judgments from both sides
of the issue.
Mr. Grayson said that he found himself a little bit in opposition with people who think
that this is really a Board decision. He thanked Dr. Wethington and said he was pleased, but not
surprised, with the depth of the knowledge, the information, and the work that went into making
the decision. The decision has been questioned; however, he believes, from the presentation, that
the administration has assembled an appropriate group of experts with great levels of experience
in addressing these issues. He thinks the administration has don