Governor's Speech at Postsecondary Trustees Conference
September 22, 1997

Thank you, Leonard, and thank you all. Thank you.

Thank you all. Well it certainly has started out to be a tremendous conference. I think Dr. Hooker last night got it off, got it started off tremendously, and if you didn't get to see that presentation, I'd suggest you make arrangements to view it on video. We have it out of my office, and we can make it available to you or your colleagues back at you institution, because it was very inspiring, but, it gave us a tremendous wake-up call, it talked about the way that the world would change, and what education would play in it, and it questions whether or not our traditional institutions of higher education will be the ones to play that role. That I believe is the essence of the challenge that is before all higher education institutions over the next 20 years, the next generation. Can they adapt to the changing world? And I talk around about, to the various institutions, and people about why we needed to make changes -- it is that universities by their design and history are slow to change, because they have to be the guardians of truth and they have to resist political pressures to adapt the truth to political necessity. In times past it was sometimes universities were under pressure to adapt the truth to religious necessities, and because of that pressure universities have developed an insulation against change and an insulation against outside influences, all for good reasons. But that very protective shell that they've built for themselves could be their destruction. And let us not take that too lightly, observing this morning. Information has changed the Soviet Union. Information destroyed the Soviet Union. Information is transforming China. Information is changing industry. And technology in this information age will either transform the university or it will make it obsolete. And we in Kentucky fortunately, this process has not gone so far that we are behind yet. We in fact have the opportunity to get on the front burner. But we must take it, and you must take it. We've sort of got this divided up that this is supposed to be the trustees and this is supposed to be all of you all, it may not exactly be that way, but I'm going to basically talk this way assuming I'm talking to the trustees. If you're a trustee over there, listen to me anyway.

Thank you all for being here. This is certainly the most important job that I will, this area of postsecondary education is the most important thing I will be addressing ever how long that I hold this office, and I expect to continue working with you personally on making sure that this thing works. But as I said last night, the big end of the job is in your hands, and you as the members of the boards of trustees and regents of these institutions, it's up to you to understand what the challenges and the opportunities are and to make sure that your institution meets that challenge. To you new members of the board, you had the dose of about two hours of Pattonese, the Patton philosophy on higher education, and that may be more than any of you want, and I'm not going to put you through the whole dose again this morning, but for you old board members who didn't get the benefit of the 2 ½ hour dialogue that we had with the nominees from which we selected the board members, I'm going to give you an abbreviated version, because I want you to understand my commitment to this endeavor and your role in it. We without doubt used more care and energy in making the nominations to the Boards of Trustees this time than has ever been exercised in Kentucky before, and I say that without any reservation. All of the Trustee nominations come due in July, and as you know in the law, we put that off a month or two so we would have the opportunity to spend some more time on it, but even then we didn't spend as much time as we intend to spend in the future. I want to compliment the Higher Education Nominating Commission for the outstanding individuals that they selected, but I want to challenge them to spend even more time and search this state more thoroughly for even more dedicated and diverse people to recommend to us to nominate for next June and July's round of nominations. And we need to get started on that earlier, and we will be evaluating these individuals. Most of you that are up for appointment probably will be reappointed if you want to serve, and our office is going to spend a tremendous amount of effort to make sure we have boards of trustees that are committed to this new philosophy of postsecondary education we have here in Kentucky and are willing to spend the time and effort to be an effective and contributing board member, and are not people who expect these jobs to be prestige jobs and then just turn the running of the institution over to the administration without any oversight whatsoever. I want to emphasize that it is vitally important that we have a good strong working relationship between the board and the administrations of these institutions. We must have boards that are supportive of the administrations these institutions. We cannot afford to have controversy on these boards, and we cannot afford to have controversy between our 9 different institutions. But that doesn't mean that we need to be a rubber stamp for anybody. So those are the responsibilities that I expect the board members to implement, and as these appointments come due, certainly your attendance at board meetings and your active involvement in the affairs of your board will be some of the criteria that we will use to determine whether you should be reappointed. I sort of think that if governors are doing a good job, they probably ought to serve a second term.

But they ought not to have a lifetime lease on the job, so two terms… And so in that philosophy of giving good people an opportunity to serve a second term, the new law likewise says that board members can serve a second term. But they don't have a lifetime lease on the positions either. But that would give an individual a possibility of 12 years to serve on one of these boards and during that time you could tremendous contribution to the people of Kentucky. And certainly our tendency is going to be to reappoint valuable board members that have made a positive contribution. But we're also going to try and make sure that we have boards that are diverse and boards that represent the whole region that they are supposed to serve. So we are going to be spending a tremendous amount of time to making sure that we have quality board members that understand what they're responsibility is, so that's the reason I wanted to spend a little time with you.

Let me overview in more detail than I did last night what I believe the philosophy adopted by the General Assembly for postsecondary education in Kentucky is. And let me say it is the General Assembly in Kentucky that determines public policy. Now it's the Governor's responsibility to lead us to consider changes in public policy, and I did that and will continue to do that. It is not the Governor's right nor authority to impose public policy, and I can tell you there are things about House Bill 1 that I thought ought to have been a little bit different, but I had to, of necessity, succumb to the will of the General Assembly, because in the end, they have the last word on matters of public policy. And I would remind the boards of trustees that it is not your responsibility to determine public policy. It is your responsibility to implement public policy. And if you don't agree with House Bill 1, I would invite you to oppose that as much as you can, and do everything you can to get the next session of the General Assembly to modify it, to form with the ways you think it ought to be. I would at the same time invite you to resign from your position on the board of trustees, because you can't implement a policy and fight it at the same time. That's sort of the same invitation I gave to the nominees that we were considering. So let me review for you those five or six goals and particularly the relationship of our various institutions. As I said last night, we've tried as much as we can, and you can debate this, but we have tried to keep the institutions from competing with each other as much as we can, in some cases we've tried to get them to compete with themselves in reallocating resources, but we've tried to make the missions of all of our various institutions much more clear and distinct, and reduce the competition and the in-fighting. And let me just start with the regionals. The regionals' mission is access to quality to baccalaureate and master's degree programs. And that access will always include a strong and viable residential traditional student campus that is the backbone and the mainstay of postsecondary education in this country. That will always be a vital part of the institutions' traditions, and they're doing that and they're doing a good job at that, and so the fact that we may not dwell on that as much as some other subjects does not mean that that is not vitally important and a basic core element of their mission, and your job will always make sure that that experience, to be able to bring our traditional age students into campus, in the collegial atmosphere and develop the things that many of us had the opportunity to do will always be a vital part of your school's mission, and don't ever ignore that. But in this day and age we must expend the mission, because we must make that quality baccalaureate or master's degree education available to all of our citizens, even the non-traditional citizens like me that, or like older people that no longer can absorb that education in the traditional residential sense. We must make it available to our citizens of any age where they are, on their time schedule, because they have accumulated other responsibilities, and they have a job and they have a family and they are place-bound, and we must bring that education to them. The regionals must form a much stronger working relationship with our community colleges, which must continue to provide as they have an extremely strong academic offering in virtually every community in this Commonwealth. And that will continue to be the core mission of the community colleges. But they need to concentrate on the lower division programs, and working with the regionals and the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky, will collaborate with them to make a baccalaureate degree available throughout this Commonwealth. Now I am from Eastern Kentucky, and I think it is a tragedy that we never developed a state-supported institution in Southeastern Kentucky. But now let me tell you the time to do that has gone. We do not need more universities in this Commonwealth. But we need all of our universities to serve all of the Commonwealth. Hanley (Dr. Hanley Funderburk), Eastern Kentucky ought not to be in Richmond, I'm just going to be just as blunt as I can be about it. But they don't make a truck big enough to haul all, load all those buildings up and haul them down to Hazard where it ought to be. And so what we've got to do is maintain that core campus there in Richmond, but we've got to serve that southeastern Kentucky region. And Morehead's got to serve northeastern Kentucky, and Murray's got to serve far west Kentucky, and Western's got to serve middlewestern Kentucky, and Northern's got to serve northern Kentucky and Kentucky State University has got to play that unique role. We must rebuild Kentucky State University as a nationally-prominent, historically African-American institution that has the very best teaching program and the best liberal arts program, and Chuck, we're going to do that. We're committed to making Kentucky State University a nationally-recognized historically African-American school. And of course the University of Louisville has got a combination of a mission. They've got to provide mass education to all the people that they serve, but then they've also got to move into that higher rank of a research doctoral university that has the very most excellent kinds of instructional programs, and working with the University of Kentucky, they've got to build, the two institutions, must build a doctoral research establishment here in Kentucky that will be that engine of intellectual power that drives us ahead. That is the fundamental key - all of it's important, and our regional universities and community colleges have to provide mass education, but if we're really going to move ahead forty years down the road, we must make our two doctoral institutions that concentration of intellectual capital like we have never ever seen in this state before. And I know that we're committed to doing that, and at the University of Kentucky, we must have a comprehensive doctoral university. We will always have a situation where some of our bright our young children, young people want to go to another university in another state to experience another intellectual exposure. One of the things that got me so wound up on this thing, besides my innate sense that we needed to do it, was shortly after taking office we had eight Presidential Scholars hosted at the Governor's Mansion, and all eight of them were going to other schools outside the state. The best and the brightest in Kentucky and none going to our universities. We need our young people to continue to have that experience. But for every bright, brilliant young Kentuckian that goes to another university in another state, we need to be bringing another bright, brilliant young person from another state into Kentucky. The net flow of intellectual power into and out of Kentucky must at best be neutral, and it is certainly not neutral now. And the only way we're going to do that is to have at the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky tremendous concentrations of intellectual power. And that certainly requires a tremendous commitment on behalf of Kentucky state government, but that alone will not do it. It also requires commitment and leadership on these campuses, and as Michael Hooker said yesterday, it requires faculty to be willing to change. I see no threat to anybody in the educational establishment that is willing to change. I see tremendous threat to those who are resistant to change and who insist on keeping the status quo, because the status quo will not stand. And in our technical schools, we need to develop an entirely new commitment to mass educational quality programs that are a combination of the technical knowledge we need to make the industry of this nation hum and the academic qualities a person must have if they're gong to be able to meet new experiences and to adapt and change to the world that is changing around them. There was a time when change was so slow that it was almost imperceptible from generation to generation. And even when I went into the workforce, in most cases the people who were able to secure good jobs felt like that job would probably serve them for the rest of their working life. But we found out that that wasn't the case. Now, it's almost trite to say that the world is changing so quickly that anybody in a meaningful occupation is going to have to continue to learn and adapt and change. And we need to make sure that our people in the technical field are also equally qualified to adapt and change. But our technical schools and our technical education, as will be provided by Kentucky Tech as we elevate it onto its college ranks as it needs to be, but maintain the commitment to the basic technical skills, and do not overload them with the requirements of academia, that is the one challenge, combine them with the tremendous efforts of our community colleges, and the ability of our community colleges to provide some aspects of the technical education is another marriage and partnership that we need to establish and work on. So that total spectrum of community-based education through doctoral education must be addressed as one great big family, and that's what you all are here this week to discuss and consider, and what I know that we as a state can do, but which we as a state can only do if you work together to fulfill the destiny that can be ours. It's so exciting to think that we can be on the leading edge of this paradigm shift as Dr. Hooker said, but we can only do it if we the political leaders and you the people who are responsible for implementing our instructions are bold and visionary and committed, and I know that we are. So that's what this conference is for, to make certain that you fully understand the philosophy and the policy that our legislature has adopted, and that you are fully committed to implementing that policy, so this was supposed to be a discussion and a dialogue, and that's where we're going to go to for the next 30 minutes. Now let me warn you that I have a tendency to answer very short questions with very long answers, so now if you make a long question I might give a short answer. So let's just have a dialogue and a discussion that will probably provoke me to make other profound statements here. Don't be bashful. Have a comment.

Let me expound a little more then.

The Council on Postsecondary Education must be the leader and the advocate for the postsecondary education establishment in this state. It's an outstanding group of individuals but no more outstanding than the people that have served on the Council for Higher Education for the last 20 years. But the difference is that we're going to… our commitment must be that we view them as our leader and our advocate. They're in the process of selecting a president, and that will be a key, possibly the key action of that Council. Somehow or the other, we have to find, they have to find, and then induce to come to Kentucky, a person that has certainly a good technical background in the administration in academia, but more than that, they must have the leadership ability to get you, these 9 institutions, publicly-supported institutions, that you are all better off to meld yourselves together as a family, to advocate behind the leadership of this president for, as say, "a bigger apple" for higher education, without you all breaking up and fighting over who gets what piece of the apple. And then on the other hand, they have to be enough of a diplomat and a persuasive person to convince us, the political leaders, that this plan that they've developed is worthy of being funded. Now make no mistake about it - if we're going to have the kind of educational establishment that I've described, then we the people are going to have to out substantial funding into it, substantially more. That alone won't do it, but without that we can't do it. And I'm committed to making sure that we in state government will live up to our responsibility, but I can't do that. So this leader must convince the public that it's necessary, must convince you all to stay together as a family, and must convince the legislature to enact that program. And let me summarize the essence of House Bill 1. It establishes six identifiable and measurable goals to be achieved by these nine institutions, or our total establishment - I don't want to leave out the independent or the proprietary schools - but it establishes six goals that our educational establishment is to achieve by the year 2020, and it establishes the Council on Postsecondary Education to develop a strategic plan - a road map, if you will - on how do we get from here to there. That's it. It's simple. Specific measurable goals by time certain, and a road map to get from here to there And then our commitment to follow the road map, and that is up to us. And if we can stay united behind that common purpose, then I can believe that we can convince the people of Kentucky through their elected leaders to support that road map. But if we reduce ourselves to bickering and in-fighting, then we probably will fare no better than we have over the last decade or so. So that's the essence of what we need to do, and we've tried to design a place for each institution, and as I've said, tried to reduce the competition within each institution and give each institution or group of institutions specific and identifiable areas in which to work, because there is so much work to be done, that there is no way that we can get it done - we can't afford to waste resources competing over who's going to do what. Comments?

Rubberstamping the plan… that's good!

"I wondered what your feeling is about how long we have to spend or should spend on getting total faculty input or should we put the road map into place ourselves, and then go get it?"

Well, I don't think this road map will be available till the year 2020, till the year 2000 and the 2000 session of the General Assembly. As a practical matter, we will not have this president chosen probably before spring, and as far as input into this legislative session, the upcoming legislative session, it will be non-existent. Because we're going to have to have this budget written here by December or January, and the budget… Let me tell you, the budget is the big end of any policy document. You know, your priorities are where your money is. And at least from the state standpoint, our input is primarily through money, and so we're going to have to collectively develop this first policy document without the benefit of that roadmap. And I'll come back to that. But if we get a president on board, and they start to get a feel for the land, I would expect that they would have a specific agenda, a roadmap, going in to the year 2000, as a matter of fact about mid-year of 1999 is when I think that this map will be available, that we'll start in about mid-year of 1998, developing it. And that is the point where we must have the… this… now I do not envision this president of the Council writing this document. I envision them leading these 9 institutions to collectively write this document within the guidelines established by the General Assembly, and certainly within each institution, they need to involve their faculty. The faculty, as Dr. Hooker said, if we do not get the faculty engaged, it is unlikely that we will be able to bring about the kind of change that is going to have to be brought about. So that is sort of the way I envision that working. We're going to be putting, we've already committed $40 million or $38 million to postsecondary education, that leaves us about $62 million yet to commit, and a lot of that, I would suspect about half of that ought to be committed to a capital construction campaign that, a program that would build a lot of the infrastructure we still need and repair a lot of our infrastructure. That should generate about $300 million in capital construction over the next two year period. Now, to put that in perspective, Jim Ramsey, I believe that we only, over the last ten years, we've only invested $280 million in capital construction for postsecondary education? So to put that $300 million in perspective, even though I know each institution here could spend the whole $300 million themselves, the fact of the matter is the that that is more money over the next two years for capital construction for postsecondary education than we have spent over the last decade. And it is going to be up to us collectively to decide how to distribute that equitably and fairly, and still stay within the overall parameters, and we're going to have to do that without the benefit of a strategic agenda. So we have to make sure that whatever we do fits in what we think will be the strategic agenda. And that will leave about another $30 million to add to distribute among these various programs that we've talked about. And we're going to have to do that in the more traditional process during this upcoming session. But now, I can tell you that I don't believe that $100 million is enough money to bring us to where I think that we're talking about getting. I don't know exactly how much more money we're talking about, but we split about, we've inputted about $850 million in this area, last time, and so we're going to increase that to about, plus inflation we're going to increase it another $100 million, so we're probably going to be approaching a billion dollars. I was reading last night where California puts $3.3 billion in their community colleges, that's total, tuition and everything, so, I don't think that's enough. I don't know how much more we're going to need, but it's going to be more. I can easily se where we need another additional new $100 million in higher education in the next four years, after this upcoming two years, but I think when we get our strategic agenda we can tie that down a whole lot more precisely, and that's what I would hope the strategic agenda would do. So I think this upcoming session is very important in that we allocate that major increase in resources to higher education without getting in a dogfight over it, I think that we've got to be able to make rational decisions about how to do that, and then in the four years ahead, the challenge is how do we get a similar commitment and how do we distribute it to achieve the goals that we want. So I think the next several years will be crucial in institutionalizing this new approach to postsecondary education.

Comments? Suggestions?

"When you talked about the students, the better students going to schools outside the state, how do you plan on retaining those students?"

Well, let me rephrase what I said. It is natural for the best and the brightest students to look for a different experience. That is… One of the basic tenets of higher education is that we don't get inbred, and that we have a lot of interchange of faculty and students from one institution to the other, to keep from getting inbred and to share experiences. So, it's not so much that the greatest students in Kentucky, these are students to whom probably money's not an object, they could get a scholarship anyplace. It's not unusual that they would want additional experiences, but we want to build in Kentucky the reputation of excellence so that a similar number of students from other states would value Kentucky and would be coming to Kentucky for a different experience. Let me not de-emphasize the regionals' role in developing one field of excellence. Now, that is to, there are several reasons for that, in that we believe that there are a lot of areas that we need to have the best of the best in Kentucky, but it is also to give the regionals something about which they can take national pride, the communities can take pride in having the bet in their community, but it is to develop in the big picture a perception of excellence in Kentucky. Internally and externally. So, let's be blunt about it. Right now if you were to go out into academia around this country and just take a poll of the hundreds of typical experts in academia, the state of Kentucky cumulatively would not rate in the top half, if you said, "What are the states that overall have the best postsecondary educational establishments, total?" Kentucky wouldn't rate in the top half. And it will be our objective for those people to say, 20 years from now, "Well, at Murray State University, you've got the best program in the world in Peruvian archaeology/pre-Colombian archaeology. At Western you've got the greatest program in… whatever. And at Eastern, at Morehead, at KSU, and at the University if Louisville you've got an outstanding research program in whatever they specialize in, and at the University of Kentucky, you've got one of the top 20 programs of a comprehensive research university that is known throughout the nation as a top-flight academic institution. And cumulatively, the nation would recognize Kentucky as a state that understands and values excellence in higher education, and equally important, here within the state of Kentucky, our people understand that we can compete with the best and win. So the programs of excellence at the regional universities, they may of necessity have to be rather narrow, but their target needs not to be the biggest program in the world, but rather the best program, and however narrow that they have to focus to make sure that they are the best, that's how narrowly they should focus.

You're exactly right. That's basically, we did have… the previous Council operated on consensus, and when you can get 9 of these very capable presidents to agree on much of anything, it's not going to be very controversial, I can tell you that. And so we didn't get into a lot of controversial things. And we want a different kind of consensus. Or at least, we want to, if at all possible, to be less competitive within the family, and give more clear areas of focus for each member of the family, and I think that we can do that, but that's a challenge, and I fully understand exactly what you're talking about. We certainly are not looking for the route of least resistance. But I do believe it is vital that these 9 institutions try to work together as a family, and respect each others' work, and recognize that each has a particular role to play, and to not be unduly competitive, and compete against ourselves and compete against the rest of the world, but let's try to keep this family together, because keeping this commitment is ultimately what we must do over the next few years, is to elevate this subject to such importance that the people of Kentucky will over time understand that. I see Dr. Wethington back there in the middle of the room, and he and I've had some good conversations in the last month or two, and we've agreed that the fact that we did get in such a high-profile disagreement has certainly elevated this subject to a level it never would achieve had we not done that, so we both feel like we have made a positive contribution. And I will say that Dr. Wethington's concern, and legitimately so, is will the state, will we make a long-term commitment and keep it to really do what it takes to make the University of Kentucky what I have said that it needs to be. There's no disagreement about what the University of Kentucky needs to be, probably not much disagreement about how it's going to get there. It's going to get there by having long-term, sustained support from the people of Kentucky and to build that kind of support for a program that admittedly is not going to bear dividends before the next election, as a matter of fact, not before the next generation, that is a legitimate concern, and we must as a group make sure that we as a state keep that commitment. And I certainly understood Dr. Wethington's concern, and I'm going to continue, so long as I have any influence on the subject, going to continue to remind the people of Kentucky that at the University of Kentucky we must have a world-class research institution if we're going to be a world-class society. Now, we can continue to be what we've been, and we will be that if we do not keep this commitment.

Ms. Weinberg, in case, I'm sure you couldn't hear behind her, said that isn't it the job of the regional universities to sort of prioritize what they want to be excellent at. And I want to differentiate, those are two different missions. The mission to provide quality access to everybody within their service mission, that's the big mission. But this area of excellence is to be determined by the institution. Certainly the Council has final say, but I would expect that the Council would approve what the institution recommends. But, and there's a set amount of money that's been allocated, and I certainly view that as ongoing money but I don't view that particular element of the appropriation increasing over a period of time, I think it ought to stay constant, so as the regionals look at what they're going to concentrate on, they have to look at the amount of money that's available and figure out how can I develop appropriation for that purpose, for the purpose of achieving excellence. And you've got to measure what it is you're going to do by the size of your appropriation.

Stand up and introduce yourself, Jim. This is the new president of Northern Kentucky University, Jim Votruba.

The comments were generally about the need to incentivize the system and that's absolutely true. If recent history has proven anything, it's that people react to incentives, and don't react if there is no incentive. Russia proved that the lack of an incentive in a system doesn't work. And the changes in the economy of this nation over the last 10 or 20 years have been responses to incentives. So that is true, and like I've said, it was our final decision to try and not place our universities in competition with each other, Now, I'm not saying that is a permanent decision. That is what you collectively and the CPE individually needs to eventually determine. And eventually, that might not be the correct policy. But at least to begin with we cannot continue the system of having each individual institution try to go to the politicians and use their political power to get favorable treatment. That is not judging what is right for all Kentucky in the big picture. And so I knew that we had to get away from that system. Now I will say that when I originally started dealing with this subject a year or so ago, I was thinking that we would just solve all of these problems. We, the policy-makers, we would write a funding formula, we would write a recipe, and if I'd have kept going along that same line of thought, we would have had 900 pages of laws for you all to deal with like we have in elementary and secondary education. But fortunately, as hopefully happens most of the time in my life, when I get off on a great big wild tangent, and I go on that tangent for a reasonable length of time, some of my friends get me straightened back out and I do come back to reality, and I do think that I did, not that I would have ever been able to pass that plan, but in discussions with many of the presidents, you all emphasized to me the fact that we have great autonomy and that's good. The challenge is to get that autonomy and get it focused on our overall goal. And that, I see Skipper Martin back there, when he goes that way like that it means it's time to shut up, and it is 9:00, and they're lining up in the halls over here to take over from me, but again, we're going to, I've got some signals here. What are you saying back there? Morton Holbrooks has got a question. Well, you've even found a microphone. That's great! That's what these microphones over here were for. Again Martin, you always have sage advice for us.

"How do you visualize tying the General Assembly into this program? I remember many years ago when the Legislative Research Commission was set up, the concept was that it would spend all of the intervals between the sessions of the General Assembly in research work or projects that the General Assembly didn't have time to deal with. Such the old saying, 'Money makes the marigolds gold,' was never more applicable than in what you're proposing here. Twenty years, even if you serve, as we hope you will, two terms, there's got to be a gap between your term and the next governor's term, and it seems to me that we need some mechanism by which the General Assembly proceeds along in concert with all the research work that these councils that you've set up are proceeding on. You visualize SCOPE as performing that function. Is there any merit to having the LRC with more funds and more staff to coordinate its research work with that of these councils that you have set up now to accomplish the purposes of higher education?"

Sounds like you led me right into talking about what I had neglected to talk about and that's the SCOPE committee - one of the fundamental tenets of this program is to have that dialogue that is so important, so we have the SCOPE committee - the Strategic Committee On Postsecondary Education. And it is with the exception of, initially it has the involvement in selecting the first president of this council, other than that it has no power. But it is a three-pronged forum where the Council, the CPE will convene the fourteen members of the General Assembly and the Governor's Staff and they will carry on a dialogue about what we need to do and how are we going to go about doing it, and how much are we willing to do. So the Council will be the driver of this organization, and they will convene the policyholders and they will explain to them now, back in 1997 you established goals and you told us to draw a roadmap, and we've drawn that roadmap, and now here it is, you're coming up to a legislative session, and if you're going to meet these goals by 2020 and if you're going to follow this roadmap you told us to draw, then these are the things you have to do in this upcoming legislative session. Now, that gives the political leaders the opportunity to have feedback, and of course the Governor, and a different governor than this governor, might say to this council, "well, I've got a little different priority than the previous governor." And the various elements of the General Assembly would express their various views, which will be all over the board. And then using that input, the Council must, on the one hand, either convince the political leadership to do what they think needs to be done or modify their proposal to meet the concerns of the political leadership, because the political leadership will eventually make the decision. And the object is to keep the political leadership making decisions on the big picture and letting the Council and these institutions make the decisions in the individual micro-picture, and what we've had is that the political leadership has been making the micro-decisions, based on various political considerations. So, its the dialogue that is mandated through the Strategic Committee On Postsecondary Education that's hopefully a fundamental element, Morton, that you so aptly point out. Again, thank you all for being here, thank you for your contribution to higher education in Kentucky, and I look forward to continue to work with you and I'll see you next year. Thank you.