Senate Meeting
13 October 1998
Broun Hall Auditorium
Senate Chair Glen Howze called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m.
The minutes of the previous Spring general faculty meeting were approved as posted on the Senate web page.
Per the request of Parliamentarian Herb Rotfeld, the official rules for access to the Senate floor were reviewed. Motion, discussion and debate will follow the Senate Rules of Order and basic procedures, including, when called upon you must state your name and department so that it can be noted in the minutes. No one may speak a second time on any issue or address a second question to a speaker until all others wishing to speak have had an opportunity to do so.
President’s Address to the Faculty: Dr. William Muse
C. Bailey (Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology) expressed his concern for the existing process on identifying priorities at the University. Bailey commented on the original priorities process that was initially laid out in 1993-1994, describing it as a two year intricate process which turned into a short term fix, resulting in much anguish for the faculty. At present, Bailey does not see one continuous process in effect that is a match to Muse’s vision.
Bailey asked Muse if he believed whether the faculty should have faith in the process. Muse stated that the process that is in place is the best one to follow within the time constraints issued. He wishes there were more time to spend on some of these issues. Muse also wishes that in 1994-1995 the University had continued with the process that was begun, to have a more clearly identified set of priorities, both high and low.
Muse is doing all that he can to provide for faculty input in to the current process. (We) need time for hard analysis to look at what the impact of various decisions might be. Muse said that (we) are going to do the best job possible. He encouraged faculty to let the process that is in place work.
R. Penaskovic (History) stated that he doesn’t believe the faculty wanted change and that he finds it puzzling that some trustees insist on micro-managing the University, telling Muse that they want certain programs cut such as religious studies and music. Penaskovic finds trouble in the 10% cut over the next five years and the taking of money from low priorities and giving to high priorities. He believes that the great universities in this country don’t exist on reputation of one program or six programs, but that it is the total university that lives or dies.
Muse said that the cut would not be 10% for each program. This figure was a way to get individual units to identity those programs they would eliminate if they had to. Out of that identification, [we] will evaluate those programs to determine if it would in fact produce the reallocation resources needed and if the net result would be beneficial to the institution. Muse underscored the fact that the number one priority that the University is trying to address is raising faculty salaries to the competitive level. Pay increases will take the majority of the money that is freed up. There will be some money set aside to support a few programs that can and do have the potential of enhancing the academic reputation of this institution at the national level. Contrary to Penaskovic’s observation, Muse believes that there have been a number of studies done that have pointed out that the reputations of institutions have largely been based upon a few selected programs that have achieved national or international status. [We] do not have enough resources to allow every program here to compete at a competitive level, but [we] do have resources that would allow a few to do that, and that would be a wise strategy for this institution to undertake.
Faculty Chair: Dr. Glenn Howze
On November 6 there will be a Board of Trustees meeting at 9 a.m. at the AU Conference Center. Immediately following will be a meeting of the Commission (approximately 1 p.m.) during which President Muse will present "Priorities."
On November 11 there will be a Commission meeting for public comment at 1 p.m. at the AU Conference Center. Requests to comment should be turned in to President Muse by noon Nov. 10. Howze would also like a copy of the request.
On November 19 at 1 p.m. the Commission will hold its final meeting, at which time they are scheduled to approve the report.
On November 20 at 9 a.m. in the AU Conference Center there will be a special meeting of the Board to consider the Commission’s report.
On October 15 the AAUP hosted a reception for new AU faculty.
A campaign headed by J. Brown (Journalism) for the Higher Education Partnership is underway. Howze encouraged faculty to join. The cost to join is $12 a month and can be deducted automatically from paychecks. J. Brown and M. Mercer (Journalism) handed out applications for membership at the current meeting. Completed applications may be mailed to Montgomery or turned in to Brown or Howze.
The Senate plans on taking up the Workload Policy in November. Howze urged Senators and faculty to review this document (presented Summer 1998 by M. Boudreaux) for any necessary changes or fine-tuning.
Appointments to University Committees should be made by the close of the week.
Howze called attention to the upcoming government elections and encouraged faculty to approve the bond issue that Muse previously mentioned in his address. Upon its approval, the bond will bring 30 million dollars to Auburn.
Commission Report: Dr. Wayne Flynt
According to Flynt, the process on priorities began back in 1992, during the time of the case of the Alabama Coalition for Equity, the Harper plaintiffs and the Alabama Disability Advocacy Program versus the State of Alabama (Flynt served as an expert witness on the case.) The case was based upon the fact that the quality of public education provided to a child in Alabama depended largely upon where that child lived. A child in Wilcox or Lamar Counties received less than $1700 a year, whereas a child in Mountainbrook received $5300 a year. In April 1993, a circuit court judge ruled that this funding was in violation of the 1901 Alabama Constitution. Subsequently, the decision was upheld by the Alabama Supreme Court and is still in effect.
The Court has ruled that the way in which we fund public education in Alabama is presently unconstitutional. Subsequently, a group of 14 attorneys representing plaintiffs and defendants met for four months to try to decide on a remedy to that problem. The remedy was then proposed in a legislative agenda entitled Alabama First, which passed the Alabama Senate in 1993 but was defeated in the House because of opposition from Alabama Education Association and ALFA .
The failure of Alabama First and the subsequent election of Fob James as governor meant that one of the two ways of solving this problem was not going to be realized. That solution would have been to overhaul the tax structure, in turn generating sufficient revenue to bring all children in Alabama up to the level of the best funded five districts in the state. The refusal of political leadership to provide equity funding left us in a situation in which there was no remedy, but still an existing unconstitutional provision of funding of public schools.
That said, the money to equalize public schools would be found in some other source; the Growth in Special Education Trust Fund, a series of special designated taxes used only for education in Alabama, and the State’s four-year research universities. The Growth in Special Education Trust Fund has virtually all gone to provide equity in system of funding K-12 public school, however more was needed and that money has come from higher education.
Flynt stated that the administration at this University is looking at a process in which there is simply not going to be more money, or if [we] get more money, it will come from tuition or a change in the political process.
[We] have a flawed process and [we] are going to have a series of flawed proposals. If this Commission does not propose and then act all that is flawed will transfer to a flawed place and a flawed group – that is the Trustees – who are going to do this for you. You will not like our decision but you will like the other decision far less. The problem is in the structure; the problem is not in the groups of people wrestling with these issues.
Flynt believes that part of our problem rests in our culture. Auburn has refused to make some tough decisions, knowing since 1992-1993 what had to be done and what was going to happen. Flynt closed by stating that what [we] have is two bad decisions and that he will do his best to make the least bad of those decisions.
Task Force: Dr. Barry Burkhart
Burkhart opened by stating that the Task Force had completed the task assigned to them. He then thanked the Task Force members for devoting their time: from AU faculty; Jo Heath, Y. Kozlowski, K. Fields, Connor Bailey. From AU Administration; D. Wilson, J. Henton, D. Wolfe, J. Pritchett. From AU Staff Council, B. Turner. From the AU A & P Assembly, Robert Gottesman. From the AU SGA, William Stagall. From the AUM student government, Jerome Taply. From the AUM Faculty, Don Nobles. From the AUM Administration, Tom Bocina, and before him, Joe Hill.
Burkhart reviewed the charges that were set out for the Task Force: to examine the efficiency of existing academic programs and administrative structure, to determine how efficient is Auburn and how does it compare with its peer institutions, to examine the process by which programs were to be phased out or examined for viability, to determine if there could be programs which could be phased out without doing harm to the academic mission or quality of the University, to determine if there were ways to simplify the academic administrative structure without harming Auburn’s instructional and outreach efforts, to examine non-academic areas of the University that might be eliminated, reorganized or out-sourced, to make interim and final reports to the Senate and general faculty and to work with President Muse and the Commission to coordinate efforts of the Task Force. Upon formation of the Commission, the Task Force was also asked to examine the current organizational structure of the University as well as the existing relationship between Auburn and Auburn University at Montgomery.
Burkhart stated that one of the Task Force’s most important findings this past summer was the realization that Auburn is an academic miracle, "It is almost impossible to fathom how well this institution does with how little it is given."
The Task Force issued its first report on efficiency, program review and assessment and reorganization on June 30 1998. The entire report is available on the Senate web page. Burkhart read aloud the executive summary that concluded efficiency may not be the best and should not be the only criterion for evaluating Auburn’s status. Auburn’s efficiency has a down side, particularly the compression of pay rates for faculty staff and professional administrators. To improve Auburn’s status, the Task Force recommended that the University establish a continuing review of program review and assessment based on the viability, centrality, quality and uniqueness of each program or service and that this process identify programs to be eliminated, merged, or enhanced. The Task Force identified reorganization as a poor method of increasing efficiency saving money or enhancing quality without a very deliberate criterion referenced planning process. Also, the Task Force recognized the unique relationship that exists between Auburn and Auburn University at Montgomery and made specific suggestions to build together on each institutions’ respective strengths.
Burkhart added that it had been a pleasure to work with the staff, faculty and students from the AUM campus. He reported that the President had accepted and transferred the same conclusion -- which the relationship between the two institutions is acknowledged. In addition, the Commission has also voted to agree on that issue.
On the issue of reorganization, the Task force recommended that a process be established whereby all proposals for consideration are compared to a set of criteria that the Task Force developed. The Task Force reviewed some 35 proposals for reorganization and made a set of recommendations to the President. The final report can be read on the Senate web page. Burkhart read aloud the letter of transmittal attached to the report. (October 6, 1998 minutes)
In closing, Burkhart stated that he is painfully in agreement that change is necessary, however he believes an overall cut of 10% would do irreparable damage to the University. Burkhart believes that similar goals could be made with tuition hikes and a 1% per year reallocation, but he is not confident that the Trustees will vote to raise tuition to the regional average unless there are more cuts.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Priorities Committee Report: Dr. William Walker
Deliberations on the Priorities Committee report are still underway. The Committee has met four or five times and has received 49 proposals. Faculty was asked to submit proposals and to identify and build upon of the strengths of the institution. Requests were also made for the identification of areas that may not be as strong as we would like them to be but are clearly areas for growth in the 21st Century.
The 49 proposals were examined and the Committee was surprised to find similarities of faculty interest and ideas from across campus.
Reallocation funds are estimated to be in the sum of five million dollars over the next five years. This is only an estimate and that figure will be refined over the course of the next few weeks.
Work on low priorities and program closures is still continuing. All deans and vice presidents have turned in their reports. Walker stated that not all reports are about program closure; some included suggestions for selected cuts, reducing size of operations, as well possibilities for funding that may require some parts of the university that have here to for been institutionally supported to move on to a self-sustaining basis.
C.Bailey (Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology) asked Dr. Walker to what extent did he think the faculty had been involved in the downsizing end of the process.
Walker believes that faculty have not been involved nearly enough and that the problem has been one of time.
B. Burkhart (Psychology) expressed his concern that "five year" decisions are being made on the basis of only fifteen days of consideration. He feels there has been no opportunity for review or feedback and asked whether the process will be open ended through the five-year cycle so that other programs may be identified.
Walker shared Burkhart’s concern and that there is a faculty Program Review Committee in place that will carry out program evaluations. With respect to the immediate situation- three more meetings of the Commission remain and Walker supports further deliberation.
K. Fields (Accounting) asked when faculty would have the opportunity to hear the outcome of priorities. Walker said that deans should have already discussed these issues with their respective faculties and that plans for the business school include placing the Outreach Program on soft support and eliminating the Ph.D. programs in economics and management.
F. Smith (Pharmaceutical Sciences) asked how the process of program closure would be implemented.
Walker said that it would be a four to five year process and that students would have to have adequate time to complete requirements. Program closure will not take place overnight.
B. Gastaldo (Geology) stated that it is likely that faculty will begin leaving programs identified for elimination, thus posing a chance that these programs will lack sufficient faculty in three to four years from now. Gastaldo asked what the plans were to assure students that they would be able to complete program requirements in those areas identified for elimination.
Walker said that they would hire on a part time basis and encourage faculty from other areas to teach those courses. He believes this will be a problem and that this is one area in which he has no experience.
H. Rotfeld (Marketing & Transportation) asked if there was a way to get administrators who have not shared their proposals with faculty to provide that information as soon as possible.
B. Burkhart (Psychology) asked if the Commission will have a role in identifying programs for program elimination or enhancement or are they simply going to support financial guidelines and allow the President and faculty to make those decisions about academic priorities.
Walker hopes that the President will make recommendations to the Commission and that the Commission will adopt them. Walker hopes that there will be no micro management by the Commission or the Board of Trustees.
Additional Remarks:
Howze encouraged faculty to read Flynt’s comments made at the Sept. 18 commission meeting, they are available on the web. Flynt discussed what we are doing wrong and how the board is acting incorrectly.
Faculty has yet to be involved with the identification of priorities and elimination of programs. Howze believes that the faculty owns the academic programs, if changes are going to be made we need to be involved. Howze would like Muse to make a commitment to the Commission that there will be cuts and that money will be redirected but that we at that point do not identify what will and will not be cut.
C. Bailey announced that a meeting of the local chapter of AAUP will meet on Monday,
November 9 to discuss Auburn’s current situation. Further information on time and location will be available.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.