ABSENT: W. Abner, R. Burgess, R. Evans, S. Finn-Bodner, J. Grover,
G. Halpin, G. Hill, D. Himelrick, J. Hool, J. Hung, R. Jaeger, F. Lawing,
D. Lustig, E. Morrison, L. Myers, J. Neidigh, D. Norris, P. Popovich, R.
Ripley, A. Tarrer, W. Trimble, T. Tyson, R. Wylie.
ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): B. Burkhalter (B. Karcher), R. Burleson
(A. Sattineni), J. Dane (B. Guertal), N. Haak (C. Johnson), D. Leonard
(P. Johnson), R. Miller (T. Oleinick), E. Moran (R. Norton), S. Shapiro
(B. Burkhart), J. Sheppard (J. Brown), D. Wilson (M. Matthews).
Senate Chair Glenn Howze called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The
minutes of the June 9, 1998, meeting were approved as posted on the Senate
Web Page. An amended agenda was provided at the meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. President's Office: William V. Muse
President Muse announced that Dr. William Walker (Dean, College of Engineering)
had been selected for the position of interim provost of the University.
The appointment will be effective September 1, 1998, and will continue
until a permanent provost is appointed. President Muse hoped that the search
to fill that position could begin early in 1999, after the Commission to
Review the Role of the University had completed its work. Dean Walker is
a very capable administrator, having served as dean for the past 10 years.
In addition, Walker is currently serving as co-chair for the Review Commission
and is familiar with the issues that are being considered by that body.
President Muse has asked Walker to work closely with Provost Parks over
the coming weeks so that we can ensure that we have a smooth transition
in this important post.
The Review Commission considered and acted upon recommendations in three
areas. First, the Commission accepted the conclusion that had been reached
by the 21st Century Commission; AUM is a separately accredited
institution with a different clientele, different role and mission, and
different resources from the main campus. Also, a certain degree of autonomy
between the two campuses was expected. However, the Review Commission called
for a higher degree of integration and cooperation between the two campuses.
President Muse has asked the provost at AU and the academic vice chancellor
at AUM to identify at least five areas of cooperation collaboration, and
to develop a specific plan as to how we are going to accomplish that goal.
The results of these efforts are to be forwarded to the Commission by September
15, 1998.
The second issue is of possible restructuring. The Commission asked
President Muse to solicit proposals for reorganization and organizational
change by August 1, 1998, with each proposal to be evaluated on the basis
of whether there is educational enhancement, whether costs will be reduced,
and whether the viability of the programs involved would be strengthened.
President Muse would be seeking input from a representative group of faculty,
administrators, staff, and students on the proposals that are submitted;
he will then present the recommendations to the Commission on August 21,
1998, as to those proposals that warrant serious consideration. A handout
was provided that showed a suggested format for proposals, and it can also
be found on the Senate web page.
The third issue is that of establishing priorities. The Commission required
that President Muse bring to them a proposal by November 1, 1998, as to
those areas or programs that represent priorities for the university, and
those areas that are not (and should be phased out). The process for achieving
this objective has not been fully developed yet, and President Muse would
be talking with a university leadership group about that topic.
President Muse said that the timetable for accomplishing these objectives
is ambitious; he said he would have chosen a longer period of time to deliberate
about matters of such great importance. We have to do the best we can at
meeting the requirements established by the Commission, and ensure that
those issues that are brought to the floor for consideration are thought
through as carefully as possible.
President Muse then talked about the proposed site for the new art museum.
He had received a number of letters and e-mail messages regarding this
topic. In response, President Muse has met with Dean Schneller to learn
more about the issue, and he will also meet with the Arboretum Committee.
The selection of the site for the proposed art museum was made by the
Auburn University Board of Trustees on April 3, 1998. That decision was
the result of extensive study of more than 50 possible sites by university
administrators, faculty members, and outside consultants. That process
was spread over a period of approximately two years. The site that was
selected for the art museum is in the newer and less developed portion
of the Arboretum that contains considerable green space and less mature
plants. The resolution approved by the Board provides for the acquisition
of adjacent property for the expansion of the Arboretum to replace the
space that will be occupied by the museum. A commitment was made to carefully
replant any material that had to be relocated, and building and landscape
architects have been charged with the responsibility of blending the museum
with its surrounding to ensure that we preserve the character and beauty
of this nature conservatory. Parking for the museum is to be across Mell
Street in the area where parking already exists. It is certainly not (our)
intent that the arboretum needs to be destroyed. To the contrary, it is
(our) intent that it be preserved and enhanced. President Muse hoped that
the location of the art museum at this site would provide the opportunity
for enhancement of the Arboretum and the surrounding property so that we
can continue to serve our teaching and research missions there as well
as provide a site for considerable enjoyment for our campus and the general
public. President Muse recognized that there are multiple views on this
topic and he welcomed input from everyone concerned.
C. Bailey (Steering Committee) asked about indirect costs or support
that the Athletic Department contributes to the General Fund. President
Muse said that Don Large (and others) have looked at developing an algorithm
for the assessing of indirect costs for all of the auxiliaries, as well
as for the Experiment Station and the Extension Service who also use the
centralized financial service of the university. He was not aware that
Large has found anything different than what has been done in the past.
President Muse assumed that the plan would be to use the same process for
the upcoming budgetary year as has been used in the past. That is, there
will be a set percentage of the budget of each of those units for determining
what the overhead administrative charge will be. He has urged Large to
develop a formula that makes more sense.
Bailey noted that the Athletic Department has a budget of approximately
$20 million, and contributed approximately 1% of that to the General Fund.
An small increase in that percentage would result in a substantial amount
of money, and Bailey urged the administration and Board to look into this
possibility. President Muse said that any formula used to determine administrative
costs will be applied toward all units of the University. Athletics is
not being treated any differently than any of the other units. In fact,
Athletics has gone beyond that in contributing money to the University
on several occasions.
U. Albrecht (Mathematics) expressed that there seems to be no enforcement
of parking lately. He felt that very aggressive enforcement would not only
ease the parking situation but also contribute to increasing the General
Fund. President Muse said that many fewer complaints have been received
this year about parking violations. One of the contributing factors is
probably the new transit system, which carried up to 5,000 passengers per
day last year. Parking ticket revenues may actually be less this year than
in the past. President Muse said that Public Safety has increased its ticketing
efforts, and suspected that would continue. Jim Ferguson added that if
anyone has a specific concern about parking, let him or the parking manager
know.
R. Mirarchi (Zoology & Wildlife) asked if there would be any weighting
of proposals for reorganization that are solicited to the President. He
felt that we at the University may have a better sense of what would be
the best way to reorganize, and was concerned that powerful political entities
and constituencies in the state might force changes without adequate input
from the units involved. President Muse hoped that would not happen; the
group that will be evaluating the proposals will be asked to base their
decisions on merit rather than who submitted the proposals.
W. Brewer (Entomology) was pleased that President Muse would be meeting
with the Arboretum Committee. He felt that the President had been "seriously
mislead" in regard to the construction and impact of the proposed art museum.
He pointed out that plants cannot be moved without high mortality resulting.
Brewer asked why the museum could not be built on the area adjacent to
the Arboretum, which had been put aside for expansion of it. President
Muse was willing to be further educated on this topic.
B. Senate Chair: Glenn Howze
Chair Howze announced that two items had been added to the agenda.
The Rules Committee has nominated faculty to both Senate and University committees. This list for University committees will be sent to the provost and President Muse. The list of nominees for Senate committees will be presented to the Senate at the August meeting. Committee assignments and notifications for this year should be completed by the beginning of Fall quarter.
There will be a report on the Faculty Workload Policy at the next meeting,
to be presented by Mary Boudreaux.
The activities of the Review Commission can be accessed through the
AU Report home page, at https://auburn.edu/administration/univrel/news/aurCommissions.html.
Roy Summerford gave a brief introduction to the web page. This web site
also gives information on similar commissions that were formed in the past.
Also, the format for reorganization proposals can be found at this site.
C. Review Commission: William Walker and Glenn Howze
Walker began by urging the Senate to take advantage of the opportunity
to submit reorganization proposals. He mentioned that one group from outside
the institution had already made a proposal, but many others will certainly
have proposals. Walker was concerned about the short deadline. The Commission
meeting on the previous Friday had some positive aspects. All three of
the proposals that President Muse had presented were adopted.
Chair Howze said that the proposal submitted from outside the University
was from Dr. Billy Powell, who is the head of the Alabama Cattlemen's Association.
The proposal can be accessed through the Commission web page. Howze felt
it was a resurrection of a proposal made by Jacob Dane (Agronomy &
Soils), which had to do with taking departments from some areas and putting
them into the Agriculture. Howze and other people were upset that Dr. Powell
had been given the floor at that meeting, because other people had not
been notified and given the opportunity to speak as well. Howze recommended
that people get organized in their efforts and request permission to speak
to the Commission; he did not feel any request would be denied.
Howze also pointed out the short deadline for getting such important
tasks accomplished, and was generally disheartened by the Commission meeting.
He felt that reorganization is probably inevitable, so it is important
that every group on campus be involved in the process. Howze emphasized
that the Board members and some of the administration is focused on academic
programs only. Other areas should be considered in this reorganization
process.
The Commission is concerned with programs that are considered to be
low priority, not those that are high priority. Howze said that we need
to be ready to respond to that charge in the next few weeks, in the form
of a recommendation to the President.
S. Tuzun (Plant Pathology) asked how the proposals would be weighted,
and how much faculty input would there be in the evaluation process. Howze
felt that there would be substantial faculty input, although the process
had not yet been defined.
J. Brown (Journalism) asked what could be done to change the ambitious
schedule so that there is more time for deliberation. Walker said the Commission
is adamant about meeting the deadline for presenting a report for the Board
of Trustees at its September meeting. He hoped that if we show significant
progress, then the deadlines could be pushed back a little. Howze was less
optimistic, saying that in the past, the faculty and administration have
not impressed the Board with their timely work and recommendations on matters
of such importance. He felt it was a process of educating the Board about
how a university operates, makes decisions, and eliminates programs.
M. Boudreaux (Pathobiology) said that one major problem is that many
people at Auburn know very little about AUM, and therefore cannot make
recommendations as to how to reorganize it. She asked for some information
about the organization, the faculty, and the programs of AUM Walker felt
that "reorganization" would take place within each institution. We are
also looking for more true interactions between the programs and faculty
of the two institutions. Walker suggested some type of faculty retreat
to meet with AUM faculty and learn more about them. Howze agreed that that
would be a good idea, and that there may be some AUM faculty at the next
Senate meeting. Howze added that Provost Parks and Vice Chancellor Ritvo
have prepared a list of areas where the two institutions might have joint
academic efforts, and VP Large (and his AUM counterpart) are looking for
ways we can economize by having joint business efforts.
(An unidentified speaker) asked if "no change" would be a welcome proposal,
because many people feel that some of our organizational structures work
very well as they are. Walker said that would be welcome to him, but some
changes are likely to take place. One of the attitudes on campus is that
of no change, but that is not the attitude of the Board members on the
Commission.
[Y. Kozlowski (Past Senate Chair) asked if ACHE is moving from one viability
standard to five viability standards, and if there could be a presentation
on that at the next Senate meeting. Howze agreed to that.]
J. Novak (Agricultural Economics) said that Clemson University went
through changes similar to what is proposed for Auburn University, and
it seemed to be change for the sake of change. He asked that someone from
Clemson be brought to the Auburn to lend input. He added that Clemson is
currently undergoing reorganization because the first change "didn't take."
Howze and Walker agreed that would be a good idea, and a forum should be
scheduled.
D. Task Force: Barry Burkhart, Chair
The Task Force to Study the Efficiency of Auburn University has completed
a first report, which was provided at the current meeting. Burkhart thanked
the members of the Task Force, as well as President Muse, who has made
it clear to the Commission that faculty will be involved in the process.
He also thanked Provost Parks, who has provided the Task Force with information
it has needed. Finally, Burkhart thanked Yvonne Kozlowski for her help.
Burkhart discussed the report, which addressed the first three charges
of the Task Force (see attached). The Task Force will continue to work
on the fourth charge of determining if there are non-academic units of
the University that could be restructured without damaging academic programs
and that would result in significant savings. Additionally, the Task Force
will work with the leadership group on campus to respond to whatever duties
the Commission sets for the Task Force.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Senate Ad Hoc Committee to Study Career Ladder for Non-Tenure
Track Faculty: Jo Heath
A summary of the proposal was provided with the agenda for the current
meeting. Heath discussed the proposal, which dealt with the creation of
auxiliary positions. While the proposal was developed with some involvement
of the national AAUP, the proposal is not endorsed by the AAUP, but it
will "get by." That is, "... everything will be fine until there is a problem
with the academic freedom of one these auxiliary faculty."
R. Gandy (Physics) felt that the proposal would be institutionalizing
a second class of professors. They will always be paid less, will not be
able to vote in certain departmental meetings, will not be able to become
department heads or graduate faculty. Gandy also questioned if these people
could be senators and how their equity pay raises would be determined.
Also, he felt this would be a disincentive to hire regular, tenure-track
assist professors, because the auxiliary positions are cheaper. He felt
there are many issues related to the proposal that warrant further study.
Heath said that the Faculty Handbook would have to be amended to
reflect these new positions.
U. Albrecht said that there is basically a two-tiered system in place,
with one of those being people who are put on part-time positions without
substantial benefits. This proposal would institute (for some of these
people) a type of financial and social safety net. Albrecht did not feel
this proposal would create a new structure, but would take into account
an existing structure and incorporate it within the framework of the University.
It would provide for those excellent instructors an incentive to stay here
rather than go elsewhere for better benefits. Heath agreed that that is
the point.
P. Johnson (Political Science) asked if there is anything to prevent
a department, inclined toward exploitation, from having both 15% (or 25%)
auxiliary faculty and also sizable numbers of part-time faculty. Heath
said there is no such provision in the proposal, but the auxiliary positions
should be superior enough that the department will be induced to have more
tenure track so that they can have more auxiliary positions. Currently,
the Department of English has 50% part-time combined with non-tenure track
faculty. They could not switch to the new system immediately, and would
have to maintain some part-time faculty for some time. Johnson then asked
what happens if an "unenlightened" future administrator decides to replace
a vacated tenure-track position with an auxiliary position. Heath restated
that the caps would be in place to prevent such "erosion" from going too
far.
C. Johnson (Communication Disorders) said that her department trains
clinicians because of the nature of the work. Almost one-third of the faculty
in that department are clinical instructors; they contribute to the clinical
training programs as well as provide an important outreach service for
the University. Therefore, she did not feel the same policy can apply to
all departments. Heath realized that the policy would create problems for
Communication Disorders.
R. Henderson (Small Animal Clinic) said that the College of Veterinary
Medicine runs a teaching hospital, and must respond to the needs of the
citizens of Alabama and the southeast. The hospital looks toward the possibility
of additional young, auxiliary faculty that would have the opportunity
to get their training and who would help manage the teaching hospital load.
Henderson agreed that there is a form of outreach and regional education
that takes place, as well as good will for the University.
B. Felkey (Pharmacy Care Systems) asked if the application of the cap
is intended to only be at the departmental level, or would it be allowed
to be judged from the school or college level. Heath said that as the policy
is written, the cap will be enforced at the departmental level. "Units"
usually do not have instructors, such as outreach units and the Experiment
Station.
U. Albrecht made a motion to postpone the discussion to the next meeting;
the motion was seconded.
It was pointed out that the Department of English may be more affected
by this policy than other departments. He said that because it is summer,
English may not be able to adequately discuss the topic. He suggested that
the discussion be postponed to the first fall meeting of the Senate. Albrecht
accepted this as a friendly amendment to his motion.
The motion to postpone the discussion to the fall carried by voice vote.
OTHER ITEMS:
Save the Arboretum: George Folkerts (Zoology & Wildlife)
Folkerts thanked everyone present, and gave a slide presentation illustrating
the, "... crisis of intellect, a crisis of information, and a crisis of
education." He was encouraged by President Muse's announcement that he
would be meeting with the Arboretum Committee.
The Donald E. Davis Arboretum was established 35 years ago and is currently
14 acres, making it one of the smaller university arboreta in the country.
Dr. Davis was memorialized because of his extremely energetic efforts in
creating this resource; he essentially did it all on his own.
The Arboretum is misunderstood for several reasons. Many people think
of it as a park, but it is first a museum where trees are stored so that
they can be viewed and looked at. Secondly, it is a library because it
contains a lot of information, and students go there to study. It is an
important library because it amasses together species of plants and animals
from a wide area, which students cannot see unless they take long field
trips. With funds for such trips decreasing, the Arboretum is becoming
far more vital to our teaching efforts than it ever has been.
Twenty-two classes use the Arboretum and six on-going research projects
take place there (three of which will be destroyed forever by the art museum
construction). The small pond in the Arboretum is also used for aquatic
studies and as a source of class resources. Folkerts noted that fall wet
worms are being studied; a scientist from Czechoslovakia found over 20
species of these worms in the Arboretum, several of which were previously
unknown to science.
The Arboretum is fairly well known because of its location on the fall
line, where the coastal plain and the uplands come together. This location
is more or less unique physiographically in terms of what can be grown
and the type of topography that is here.
The second major purpose of the Arboretum is that of a conservancy where
plants from all over the world are kept. For example, the metasequoia was
sent to the Arboretum years ago as part of an effort to prevent the species
from becoming extinct as its native China became more developed.
Folkerts presented many excerpts from recent AU Reports and the
Plainsman that dealt with the proposed location and construction
of the art museum. The current site was proposed earlier because of conflicts
with the long-term land use plan. This means that some vague idea that
someone thought of is more important than the existing resource that the
Arboretum offers. Other areas of the campus were rejected as a site, such
as the grassy area near the library. Trustees felt that this green space
should not be disturbed because people use it for recreation.
The location of the art museum has been reported to be in the western
edge of the Arboretum, in the center of the western portion of the Arboretum,
and in the space between the Arboretum and the Old Rotation. However, none
of these locations are accurate. The actual location of the art museum
will place it so that it faces Mell Street, lining up with Ross Hall. Site
markers can be seen the old portion of the Arboretum. Wherever the location
may be, Folkerts said that the people who selected this site did not know
the value and purpose of an arboretum. Building an art museum in the Arboretum
would be akin to tearing down a portion of the library.
Folkerts talked about a parking lot that had been constructed in the
weekend break between summer and fall quarters, on the site of an experimental
plot. The director of the Agricultural Experiment Station had not been
consulted, nor were those people whose research depended on that plot.
This incident is one of the reasons why people are so concerned about the
art museum.
The Old Rotation is an international resource, important to agriculture
here and also to Auburn's image. It is a national landmark.
The Henry P. Orr Vinery is located in the newer portion of the Arboretum.
It is a memorial to Dr. Orr who was a famous horticulturist. However, the
Vinery is not safe from the art museum construction, as site markers can
be found attached to the growing vines.
Save the Arboretum has consulted with a number of international experts
in arboretum construction, maintenance, and buildings. The "construction
halo" consists of the immediate area that is impacted, in which the soil
is disturbed greatly. Adjacent areas that are impacted average 2.5 times
the width of the halo. In this area, plant damage is traumatic. Additionally,
the downward slope toward the eastern portion of the Arboretum would be
impacted by runoff of chemicals and sediments; this would likely damage
the area beyond all use.
Many trees are found in the Arboretum that are not native to this region.
The purpose for this is that students and researchers may encounter these
trees in future work, and need to study the characteristics of these species.
These trees are chronically stressed because they are out of their natural
habitat, and trying to move them would result in their death.
There are different reports as to whether a classroom building will
be added near the art museum. Also, there would likely be a high demand
for College Street access to the museum and a parking lot would have to
be added. Exterior galleries are also planned throughout the Arboretum,
with possible accent lighting. Such lighting would disrupt photo periods,
which would result in abnormal plant growth. Experimental work with affected
plants would forever be impossible.
One full-time employee takes care of the Arboretum, plus a few dedicated
student volunteers. The budget for the Arboretum is approximately $10,000
in addition to the salary of the full-time employee. This is the lowest
budget of all major university arboreta in the country, in contrast to
the Harvard University arboretum, which has a staff and faculty of 60 and
a budget of $5.37 million. The Davis Arboretum cannot stand to be left
languishing all these years and then be subjected to the construction of
a museum that would be better placed somewhere else.
The younger portion of the Arboretum is often thought of as undeveloped.
However, this portion has a higher tree diversity than the older portion
because those trees were put there specifically to show examples of the
different types of trees that can be studied. It has much open space simply
because the trees are young.
There are many other possible sites for the art museum. Folkerts showed
ten other sites, many of which would be much better physical locations
in terms of centrality to the campus. The art museum is needed, but placing
it in the Arboretum and at the periphery of the University is not appropriate.
The people who chose the Arboretum as the site saw the fields of the
Arboretum as merely a open areas with a bunch of trees. Folkerts likened
these people to those who look at a Kandinsky painting and see a bunch
of splatters, those who hear "Appalachian Spring" say it is a bunch of
scratchings, and those who read something from Emily Dickinson and say
that it is gobbledygook. In sum, Folkerts said that, "These people can
be educated, but we realize that their remarks are invalid and can't be
paid attention to."
Folkerts added that the Arboretum Committee is adamant about protecting
the Arboretum, and they can also be consulted.
J. Novak asked if construction of the art museum in the Arboretum could
be a violation of federal law if the above-mentioned species of worms are
found to be endangered. Folkerts said those 20 species are not protected
by the Endangered Species Act yet, but if it is found that that is their
only site in the world, an appeal for emergency listing can be made. While
that would result in the construction being a violation of federal law,
Folkerts did not think that would be necessary to protect the Arboretum.
H. Rotfeld (Marketing & Transportation) mentioned that Folkerts'
web page has much of the information that was shown during the slide presentation.
This can be accessed through the Zoology & Wildlife web page.
Folkerts ended by saying that (we) are fairly confident that once the
information crisis is over, and that once President Muse and the Board
of Trustees receive accurate information, this issue will no longer be
a problem.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.