ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): C.W. Alderman (P. Cook), M. Jensen (C. Hudson), C. Johnson (M. Moran), R. Webb (R. Horton).

Chair Kent Fields called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the February 13, 1996, meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A. President's Office: William V. Muse

President Muse reported on the March 6 meeting of the Board of Trustees that was called by Governor James to discuss funding cuts for higher education. Muse was pleased with the manner in which the Board responded in defense of the University. According to Muse, Governor James wants to transfer $60 million from higher education to the Department of Youth Services, and, as justification, he has argued that selected universities, including Auburn, have too many administrators. At the meeting, Muse contended that the Governor's approach was inappropriate and provided evidence that AU's administrative costs were lower than at comparable universities in the South.

Muse cautioned faculty members who might be tempted to "jump on the Governor's bandwagon" to reduce the number of administrators. He maintained that the Governor's objective was to cut funding for higher education, and administrators were a convenient target. Nonetheless, Muse admitted that A.U. needs to reduce its administrative overhead by leaving administrative and support positions vacant, combining units, and contracting out administrative functions wherever possible. A.U. has been assured by legislative leaders that the legislature will not support the Governor's recommendations, but their solution is to maintain funding at current levels.

Muse said he was pleased that the Auburn and Opelika Chambers of Commerce were sponsoring a rally for higher education on March 13, 1996. He thought that the university should continue to send a message to legislators that higher education is important to this community and to the state. He encouraged faculty to participate in the rally.

C. Brunner (Secretary) asked Muse when he would make a decision about the semester calendar, and Muse replied that he would be prepared to make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees by their June meeting. S. Dobson (ZY) asked how much a change to semesters would cost, and pointed out that resources were already quite limited. Muse said it was difficult to quantify the costs, but financial costs should be minimal, while human resource costs will be significant in terms of time.

C. Brunner asked Muse if he anticipated other colleges or departments requesting Board approval of special student fees similar to that approved for Engineering. Muse said he and Dr. Parks thought there were other cases where that approach could be considered, and if there was interest, he and Parks would bring those requests to the Board. He added that, philosophically, there would probably be support for similar fees for other colleges, particularly in professional schools having distinct curricula. Dr. Parks added that the two best examples were laboratory-based programs incurring costs associated with operating the labs; and professional programs having differential tuition.

G. Howze (AEC/RSY) suggested creation of a Task Force representing all areas of the University community to argue a strong case to the State about the consequences of reduced funding for education. Muse said that was an excellent idea and would investigate it.

Referring to a letter he had written to Muse, M. Friedman (CH) asked if any progress had been made on a faculty clubhouse. Muse replied that the old Kappa Alpha fraternity house was a possibility, but the University did not own the house and was still negotiating its purchase.

B. Senate Chair: Kent Fields

Fields reported that revisions to the Faculty Handbook approved by the Senate several months ago were supposed to have gone to the Board of Trustees in March, but provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act were still being reviewed. This would delay the presentation of the changes to the Board until June. C. Brunner mentioned that Senators would need to nominate new members to the Senate Rules Committee at the April 2 Senate meeting; the election of the new members would be in May. K. Fields added that the next Senate meeting was April 2, 1996, and the University Faculty would meet on April 9.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS:

A. Admissions Office: John Fletcher, Director--Information on re-centering SAT scores used for admission to A.U.

Before introducing Fletcher, K. Fields noted that the agenda should have referred to "SAT" scores, not "ACT" scores. Fletcher distributed a handout containing a recommendation he had made to the Academic Standards Committee, and reviewed the reasons for the proposed change. Scoring standards for the SAT exam were established when the exam was first given in 1941. Since then, scores in the math and verbal sections have declined. The College Board decided to recenter them so that, effective April 1995, "500" would once again be the "average" score. Auburn University accepts either the SAT or the ACT for admission. Fletcher said the Admissions Office would like to adjust A.U.'s SAT requirement to compensate for the change made by the SAT College Board. The previous SAT requirement of 1000 would become 1100 (the equivalent score under the new SAT scale). He added that, eventually, ACT scores would also be adjusted. Fletcher said the new SAT standards would apply to students admitted for Summer or Fall 1996.

R. Penaskovic (HY) asked if this change would reduce the number of students coming to AU, but Fletcher did not think that would happen. He said the average score of the 1387 students who took the SAT and enrolled in Fall 1995 was 1060, which would have been higher than the recentered minimum of 1100. S. Tuzun (PLP) said he was troubled by the differential standards for out-of-state and in-state students. Fletcher said the Academic Standards Committee devised a sliding scale combining grades and test scores several years ago as a result of a court case. U. Albrecht (MH) questioned the value of a single test score in predicting students' performance, and asked why A.U. does not use placement exams. Fletcher explained that test scores and GPA were only part of the admission requirement; there were also course requirements. D. Martin (PO) asked Fletcher if he had examined the cohort whose scores were recentered to see if they developed academic problems, but Fletcher said that had not been studied.

J. Hanson (Steering Committee) moved approval of the recommended changes, and J. Grover seconded the motion. Grover asked if percentile-based standards might be more legitimate. Fletcher said the University could assign percentages to the scores, but it was still convenient to use the numbered scores for evaluation.

D. Martin asked if the motion had an effective date, and Fletcher replied that he wanted the new scoring to be in effect as of Summer 1996. Hanson modified his motion so that the change would apply to students entering in Summer 1996 and thereafter. G. Swanson (PS) asked if students had already been admitted for Summer 1996 under the new standard, and Fletcher said yes.

The motion passed by voice vote.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

A. Task Force on Special Admissions: Hardin Rahe

Rahe distributed copies of his report. He explained that the Board of Trustees adopted a policy on special admissions on November 4, 1994, following an attempt by influential individuals to circumvent a successful and long-standing admissions protocol. Upon learning that the Board had developed a new policy on special admissions without the Faculty's participation, the Senate membership voiced strong opposition at their November 8, 1994 meeting. This resulted in adoption of a resolution which was passed unanimously by the Senate on February 14, 1995. The resolution stated that policies and procedures described in the Auburn University Faculty Handbook were not followed and that an abrogation of policy and protocol had occurred; and it stipulated formation of a task force to study special admission policies at A.U.

Rahe summarized the charge to the Task Force and, referring to the report, discussed the findings and recommendations. The Task Force recommended that distinct Special Admission policies be applied to undergraduate and graduate programs, and that students not be admitted to professional programs under the category of "special admissions." Rahe moved acceptance of the report.

S. Dobson asked Rahe to explain how the Trustees' policy could cause a decrease in undergraduate enrollment at A.U. Rahe replied that a larger number of special admissions than the 5% limit were granted in the past.

M. Moran (CD) proposed a friendly amendment that would allow a mechanism by which programs such as his that were not listed as "professional programs" could be added to that list. Rahe said the Task Force had discussed this with Rebekah Pindzola (Liberal Arts) and had decided to restrict the definition of "professional program" to the undergraduate level. He added that the committee's recommendations had been presented to the Academic Affairs Committee, so the appropriate deans had an opportunity to hear them. He would not accept Moran's suggestion as a friendly amendment, so Moran offered a formal amendment that Communication Disorders be added to the list of Professional Programs. K. Fields ruled his motion out of order, determining that only the Task Force could change the content of its own report. J. Grover added that the Senate could qualify its acceptance of the report to include a provision addressing Moran's concerns.

H. Rotfeld (MT) asked Rahe to explain why some administrators might not want their programs to be listed as Professional Programs. Rahe replied that the proposed classification would prevent those programs from admitting students they might want to accept. K. Fields remarked that, if accepted by the Senate, the report would be forwarded to the Administration with a recommendation that it be adopted by the Administration and the Board of Trustees. S. Hodel (Task Force) pointed out that the committee decided to interpret the language of the Board's policy as a mechanism by which admission of undesirable students could be controlled. D. Martin asked John Fletcher how many students were being granted special admission, but Fletcher said he did not have the data with him. Martin challenged the committee's assertion that tuition revenue would be lost if special admissions were limited to 5%; he maintained that the committee could not know this unless they knew the number of students granted special admission. Rahe said the financial estimate was provided by Charles Reeder. Martin argued that acceptance of a high number of unqualified students who subsequently drop out would be costly; Rahe countered that the number of students who drop out after being granted special admission was not known and would take several years to gather.

G. Bond (Liberal Arts) asked if all undergraduates admitted under the special admissions policy would go directly into the college of their choice; a member of the Task Force agreed. M. Moran asked again about classification of Communication Disorders as a professional program. Mike Lisano (Graduate School) explained that a request for special admission into a graduate program such as the master's level program required for licensure in Communication Disorders would have to originate within the program; programs that did not want special admissions would not get them.

R. Penaskovic moved that the report be sent back to the Task Force for consideration of inclusion of other programs as "professional." Gordon Bond seconded the motion.

K. Fields asked if the program in Communication Disorders had been considered specifically by the committee, and Rahe said it had. Fields pointed out, and Rahe agreed, that there are many graduate-level professional programs at A.U. The Task Force limited its consideration to those at the undergraduate level because it determined that the existing Graduate School policy on special admissions provided an effective control mechanism. S. Tuzun asked who would make the final decision regarding special admissions. Rahe said undergraduates would be admitted through the Admissions Office, graduate students through the Graduate Dean, and candidates for the identified professional programs by committees within those programs. S. Hodel reiterated that the Graduate Dean would not grant special admission to a student unless that action was requested by faculty of the affected program. G. Bond was concerned that special admissions would be allowed into an undergraduate program such as Communication Disorders that was already turning away qualified students. Graduates of that program would then enter the graduate-level program to obtain licensure. Rahe again emphasized that special admission of students to the graduate-level program was only at the request of the departmental faculty. Nevertheless, Bond supported the recommendation that the report be sent back to the Committee for reconsideration. D. Armstrong-Wright stated that departmental admissions committees would make the decisions, unless a request was submitted by the dean. Bond said the deans had asked that they be informed if special admission was granted to someone applying to one of their programs, but this had not occurred.

U. Albrecht complained that a committee should not decide which departments should admit students as special admissions. C. Brunner recalled that the current policy allowed special admissions to all programs at A.U. S. Tuzun asked that the Admissions Office discuss prospective special admissions cases with the colleges and departments involved, prior to admitting those students. Rahe said that was already being done. Bond agreed with the need to consult the departments and colleges. J. Hanson (Steering Committee) pointed out that admission of freshmen to Auburn University was distinct from admission of third- year students to upper-division baccalaureate programs. K. Sharpless (Associate Director of Admissions) said the Admissions Office would not grant special admission of a student into a department without the department having knowledge of it. T. Petee (SOC) pointed out that such a provision was not stipulated in the report, and he added that his department should be considered a professional program. H. Rotfeld reiterated the benefit of defining "professional program" as narrowly as possible.

R. Penaskovic and G. Bond offered to rescind their motion and second if the word "and" was used in place of "or" in the appropriate places in the document, to ensure that academic officers retained control over their programs. Rahe agreed to their suggestion. The motion to accept the report of the Task Force on Special Admissions passed by voice vote.

B. Senate Nominating Committee: Eugene Clothiaux

Clothiaux was unable to attend today's meeting, so K. Fields announced that the nominees for Chair-elect of the University Faculty were Richard Penaskovic (History) and Gary Swanson (Physics); and the nominees for Secretary-elect were Thomas Cooper (Building Science) and Jennie Raymond (Management). New officers will be elected at the Spring meeting of the University Faculty on April 9, 1996.

OLD BUSINESS:

A. Research Grant-in-Aid Committee: Michael Moriarty--Proposed changes in Grant-in-Aid Program (The report was distributed with the agenda for this meeting.)

Moriarty discussed changes to the Grant-in-Aid program approved by the Senate Research Grant-in-Aid Committee: 1) Change the name of the program from "Research Grant-in-Aid" to "Competitive Research Grant Program"; 2) replace the single review committee with three discipline-oriented review committees; 3) call for proposals once each year instead of semiannually; 4) continue to restrict eligibility to tenured and tenure-track faculty; 5) return unexpended funds to the primary account if a grant recipient leaves the University during the term of the grant; 6) retain the quantitative assessment that has been used in the past; 7) return written critiques to the investigators.

B. Liddle (CCP) asked how funds would be divided among the three disciplinary committees. Moriarty said each of the committees would assess proposals submitted to that committee, but grant money would ultimately come from a single fund. C. Brunner moved to accept the changes, and J. Grover seconded the motion. Brunner suggested rewording one paragraph to correct the syntax, and Moriarty agreed to do so.

D. Martin asked if visiting and affiliate faculty would be eligible, but Moriarty replied that Competitive Research Grants were intended for full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty.

The motion to accept the proposed changes passed by voice vote.

NEW BUSINESS: None.

RESOLUTIONS:

A. Resolution regarding Total Quality Management: Michael Melancon (A copy of the resolution was distributed with the agenda for this meeting.)

J. Hume (General Outreach) asked that the word "extension" be changed to "outreach", and Melancon agreed to do so. J. Hanson asked that the phrase "University Faculty Executives" be changed to "University Senate Chair," and Melancon agreed with this. The resolution was adopted by voice vote. K. Fields invited anyone interested in serving on the new committee to contact any officer of the Senate.

G. Bond said he had attended the March 6, 1996, meeting of the Board of Trustees, at which six members of the Board spoke forcefully in support of President Muse's report to the Governor. Bond asked the Senate officers to prepare a resolution expressing the Senate's appreciation of the Board's actions at that meeting. C. Brunner agreed with Bond's observations. Bond added that President Muse should be included in the resolution. K. Fields said the officers would prepare and submit such a resolution.

A motion for adjournment passed by voice vote, and the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Cindy J. Brunner, Senate Secretary