ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): U. Albrecht (Ullery), B. Berger (Pearson), S. Dobson (Hepp), S. Gropper (Struempler), S. McLaughlin (Henderson), E. Moran (Renden), W. Summerville (Wylie), R. Webb (Walker), M. Williams (Clark).
Chair Kent Fields called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. in Broun Hall Auditorium. Minutes of the April 4, 1995 meeting were approved as distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. President's Office: William V. Muse
President Muse discussed the contract being negotiated with Nike by the Athletic Department. He said the key issue is the right to market Auburn merchandise worldwide, not the purchase of athletic uniforms. The Athletic Department concluded that the Nike proposal offered greater financial benefits, as well as the potential to make Auburn's name better known nationally. Some people have maintained that Russell should be awarded the contract because it is an Alabama firm and because of its greater contributions to the University, but Muse warned of opportunities for abuse if suppliers were chosen on the basis of the size of their contributions. He acknowledged concern among faculty that Russell might withdraw its support for academic programs, but he argued that industries and constituencies gain many benefits from their relationships with Auburn and should desire to maintain those relationships.
President Muse said that one of the attractive features of the Nike relationship is that it would permit coaches to receive compensation for participating in product endorsements. He pointed out that, while Auburn's contractual relationship with its coaches provides a base salary, it also allows them to earn additional income through radio and television appearances and product endorsements. This was a significant feature to the coaches involved in the negotiations. Muse said the University would like to continue its relationship with Russell, but it is obligated to choose its business relationships on a sound financial basis. This is especially true for the Athletic Department, which must pay all its costs out of revenue it generates because it receives no state support.
Muse reported that the budget proposal submitted to the legislature by Governor James calls for a 12% reduction in funding for higher education, which would mean a $21 million cut in Auburn's state appropriation. Muse said that, while the University Administration will be working with the legislature to try to find a better solution, we must be prepared to absorb a major cut. As a result, the strategic planning and priority-setting processes are continuing, and a financial incentive might be offered to employees who are eligible to retire.
Dana Vaughn (VPH) asked whether the Nike agreement allowing coaches to supplement their salaries through personal endorsement contracts would be interpreted to permit scientists to increase their salaries through contracts and grants. President Muse said no, pointing out that scientists have an opportunity to receive compensation from consultantships with companies. He admitted that he is not completely comfortable with the system of compensation for coaches, but it is used in intercollegiate athletics at major schools throughout the country.
Conner Bailey (Past Secretary) asked whether some of the enhanced revenues resulting from the Nike agreement could be channeled into academic programs. President Muse explained that there would be financial benefits to the Athletic Department, as well as to individuals. He mentioned the support given to academic programs by the Athletic Department in the past, and said he would be interested in this continuing in periods when the Athletic Department has sufficient revenue. Bruce Gladden (HHP) recalled that Coach Bowden allegedly had stated that no assistant coach would leave Auburn for a higher salary, based raises he had just given. Gladden reiterated concerns about potential conflict between athletics and academics. He referred to a request by the Athletic Department which solicited additional donations from alumni, while asking them not to let those contributions interfere with donations to academic programs. President Muse countered that contributions to athletics had not hurt the fund-raising campaign, and might have enhanced it.
Herb Kohl (CH) asked whether, in light of budget cuts, consideration had been given to the "fat" in the administration. Muse reported that a prioritization process is underway for administrative operations that is similar to and parallel with the priorities process operating for academic programs. A task force has established criteria by which administrative operations will be evaluated; and the Vice Presidents will provide data, rank their programs, and submit that information by the end of May. He said that, if large budget cuts are necessary, administrative areas will share those cuts to the same degree that the academic programs will. Kohl asked whether the reports to which Muse referred would be made public, and Muse confirmed that they would. Forrest Smith (PY) asked for clarification of the role of college prioritization committees. The question was referred to Provost Parks, who said that the original Task Force on Establishing Program Priorities agreed that, this year, a Priorities and Goals Committee selected in each college or school would rank programs based on four criteria. The college committee would give its report to the dean, who could then make additional recommendations to the full committee.
Tony Dozier (ACES) asked about the timetable for the retirement incentive package. President Muse said the article published in the AU Report this week provided an adequate description of what is being considered. He said he anticipates taking a recommendation to the Board of Trustees for their approval at the June 5 meeting. George Wallace (BSC) asked whether the early-retirement criterion, "age + RSA service = 75," is a requirement in the incentive plan. President Muse said he was unsure whether a final conclusion had been reached, but he thought the primary criterion for eligibility was whether an employee met the standards for retirement under guidelines established by the Retirement Systems of Alabama.
Dana Vaughn expressed concern that, as a result of the Nike agreement, funds going to the Athletic Department were being taken from research labs in Textile Engineering. President Muse said he hoped that was not the case; people he had talked with at Russell value their relationship with Auburn, particularly with Textile Engineering, and want that relationship to continue. He added that he thought the relationship was mutually beneficial. Bruce Gladden asked where profits from the A.U. logos and other marketing go, and Muse answered that specific benefits such as cash bonuses and royalties from the sale of merchandise go to the Athletic Department. In addition, the coaches that are involved can sign personal endorsement contracts with the supplier and would receive compensation for that work, but those arrangements are separate from the University's agreement.
Jan Hume (Univ. Outreach) asked about the relationship between the University's "Program Priorities" [Priorities and Goals] Committee and the Budget Advisory Committee. President Muse explained that recommendations of the Program Priorities Committee will go to the Budget Advisory Committee, which will recommend to the President specific changes in the budget for next year.
Ida Reed (TE) asked if the contract with Nike would prohibit Russell from using the A.U. logo. The President said he believed that Russell would still be able to manufacture merchandise with Auburn's name on it, because the Nike contract deals with an official uniform to be manufactured by the supplier. Muse admitted that he did not know the specific language because he had not seen the contract, but said he would look at that very carefully. Reed asked if there had been any attempt to have the contract include interaction with Textile Engineering; Muse responded that there had been no involvement with Textile Engineering in the negotiations. Reed asked if there had been consideration of any other types of support besides to the athletic department. Muse replied that the negotiations were solely between the Athletic Department and the two companies. Reed asked if consideration had been given to using Nike for shoes and Russell for uniforms, but Muse said he could not answer because he was not involved in the negotiations.
Conner Bailey asked to what extent the Outreach Program would be prioritized, and Muse replied that Outreach is included in the administrative services area along with everything except the academic programs under the Provost. Bailey inquired whether this prioritization would include the large number of non-tenure track faculty, including county agents, involved in outreach. Muse affirmed that Cooperative Extension would be included under administrative services in the prioritization process.
Glenn Howze (AEC/RSY) asked for clarification of an earlier statement that the Administrative Services area had made as much progress as the academic areas in prioritizing programs. Muse admitted that the Administrative Services prioritization process is behind the academic areas "time-wise", but said their data will be available this summer for development of next year's budget.
Ed Ramey (CE) wondered whether money from the sale of A.U. merchandise goes to the University at large, or to the Athletic Department. Don Large answered that half of that revenue goes to the athletic scholarship fund, and half to the university general scholarship fund. Bruce Gladden asked if the Nike contract stipulated the same distribution, but Muse said no, the Nike relationship is more specifically targeted--it is not part of general royalty revenues. He said he thought that royalties from sales of Nike merchandise would go directly to athletics, but conceded that it might fall under the general licensing agreement.
Dana Vaughn mentioned that most contracts and grants are public information, and asked how large was the Nike grant. Muse stated that the information would be made public but at this point there is no signed contract.
B. Senate Chair: Kent Fields
The Chair reported that Ed Ramey agreed to defer the Calendar and Schedules Committee report to the June Senate meeting, because the wrong calendars were mailed out with today's agenda.
Fields emphasized that the retirement incentive plan that is being considered is still subject to the Trustees' approval. Fields encouraged Senators to inform their constituents of the details of the proposal. To participate, an employee must have 25 years in the program, be able to buy up to 25 years, or be age 60 and have 10 years in the program. Employees should determine their sick leave balance, because qualifying time will include up to 15 months of sick leave. Participants also can buy military service or prior teaching service, so anyone considering this plan should investigate how much time they can buy. The Credit Union will loan up to 70% of the amount of the incentive payment toward the purchase of additional years of service. If individuals think they might want to retire, they should start the paperwork through the Retirement Systems of Alabama for the years they wish to buy. Although the incentive payment will be taxable, some of it may be tax-deferred on an individual basis. Fields recommended that prospective retirees should not change the amount they contribute to tax-deferred annuities at the present time, because they might want to use their once-a-year change to shelter some of the incentive payment. Interested employees should ask the provider of their tax-deferred annuity to calculate the amount available to them for catch up provisions. If the Board of Trustees approves the plan at their June 5 meeting, a mailing will go out to eligible faculty on June 6, 1995. The plan is for Fall Quarter 1995, and participants will have from June 6 or 7 until the last of July to enroll.
Ida Reed asked whether someone who has already started paperwork for retirement in July should wait. Fields suggested that if the paperwork could be halted, the person should wait to see if the incentive plan is approved. He added that September 1, 1995, would be the effective retirement date. Glenn Howze said he had heard the proposed A.U. plan offered much less incentive than plans offered by other universities in Alabama. Fields said that the proposed plan is based on one from the University of Alabama but it does not incorporate all the same features. Ken Easterday (CT) asked if there would be any effect on health insurance; Fields replied that medical insurance is being discussed but is not a part of this proposal.
UNIVERSITY BUSINESS: None
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
A. Insurance and Benefits Committee: Kent Fields
Kent Fields stated that Sheri Downer, the committee chair, was unable to attend today's Senate meeting. She had intended to present a report sent to the Board of Trustees that compared employee benefits at Auburn to benefits at other universities in the State. Senators received a copy of the report in the mailing for today's meeting. Fields commended the members of the Insurance and Benefits Committee, as well as members of the ad hoc committee that conducted the benefits comparison.
B. Faculty Handbook Review Committee: Samia Spencer
Spencer thanked the members of her committee for their efforts. She stated that the proposed Handbook revisions which were mailed to Senators with today's agenda were needed to provide clarification and correct inaccuracies. Spencer pointed out a typographical error in the description of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee on Page 3 of the committee report. A corrected description was distributed at today's Senate meeting. Spencer moved for acceptance of the proposed changes, and there was no discussion. The Senate voted by a show of hands to accept the report containing the proposed changes.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Election of Rules Committee Members
Ballots were distributed for election of three new members to the Senate Rules Committee. Senators were instructed to vote for three of the four candidates on the ballot. Those four candidates were Glenn Howze, Becky Liddle, C. Hardin Rahe, and Ida Reed.
B. Ad hoc Committee to Study Possible Change in the Auburn Calendar System: Bill Holley (continued discussion of report introduced at March 14 Senate meeting)
Bill Holley distributed a letter from the President of Southern Union State Community College concerning the proposed change in the Auburn calendar system. He also recalled a comment from the previous Senate meeting alleging that a Georgia State University study concluded the savings of changing to a semester system would be only $33,000 over four years. Holley contacted Georgia State and discovered that the study actually predicted an annual savings of $33,000 for the Registrar's Office alone.
Marcia Jacobson (EH) said her colleagues were concerned about heavier teaching loads and decreased opportunities for professional improvement leave if a change is made to semesters. Provost Parks said he understood the concern about professional improvement leave but questioned the worry about teaching loads. Jacobson asked how a 5-hour course would convert to a semester course, and Parks replied that the usual conversion would be to a 3-hour semester course. Glenn Howze asked if that meant someone teaching 15 quarter hours would teach 9 semester hours; Parks answered that it would be 9 to 12 semester hours. Bill Holley remarked that much of the concern about salaries and other issues depends on how much one trusts the administration.
Winston Tucker (SGA) raised two issues of concern to students regarding a change to semesters: GPA's and the co-op program. He pointed out that the quarter system allows students three chances to improve their GPA's, as well as providing them with a broader education as a consequence of the greater variety of classes they can take. He mentioned that the letter from Kim Durbin (included in the committee report) pointed out the necessity of offering more classes in summer term for co-op students. Tucker was concerned that budget cuts might prohibit offering more classes during the summer, and this would result in decreased enrollment in co-op programs. He also reported the preliminary results of a student opinion poll in which 2,391 respondents (86.5%) favored the quarter system; 303 (11%) favored the semester system; and 71 had no opinion. Tucker argued that a thorough discussion of this topic is not possible without considering students' concerns, and that the customer of Auburn University is the student. Bill Holley wondered how many of the students participating in the telephone poll had read the complete committee report. He warned that, although the report listed advantages of the quarter system, there were associated costs that the students might not have considered.
Larry Wit (ZY) was granted privilege of the floor. He expressed concern about potential costs of changing to semesters that he thought were not considered in the study. He compared the situation to that of paying a full year's rent in 2 versus 3 payments: although the total cost may be the same, coming up with adequate resources at one time is an issue that was not investigated. He gave as examples the need for microscopes, slide sets, and other resources, as well as classrooms and laboratories of sufficient size, and he questioned whether Auburn has the resources to meet those hidden costs. Holley recalled that Wit had already communicated those concerns to the committee, and they were given consideration during the deliberations. Wit maintained that those potential costs should be weighed when calculating the potential savings of a semester system.
David Alton (CE) was also granted privilege of the floor. He spoke in favor of the quarter system because of its flexibility, arguing that it provides opportunities to offer a greater number of distinct courses, a feature which helps attract and retain students.
David LaBand (EC, for Dean Alderman) maintained that the semester system offers pedagogical advantages that include the psychological relief of alternate-day classes. He refuted the claim that the scope of coursework is diminished in a semester system, insisting that curriculum content is adjusted to enable schools on semesters to have a curriculum that is as broad and rich as that of any other school.
Richard Penaskovic (Steering Committee) said he much prefers the semester system, because students enrolled in courses that require extensive outside reading and writing have a longer time in which to complete those assignments. He also claimed he was able to accomplish more research in a semester system because more time was available in summers for research.
Winston Tucker predicted that students who lose interest in a course because of the teacher or the material would have more difficulty in a semester system due to the length of semesters. Bill Holley remarked that the ad hoc committee had sought students' opinions through the SGA, the open forum, and the Plainsman, and had asked Vice President Pat Barnes for advice from her office regarding students'needs.
Stephen McFarland (HY) asked what the time table and process would be if the Senate approved the semester system, and Holley replied that the model for the country is the three-year program used at Michigan State. He remarked that responses to his inquiries about low summer enrollment at midwestern schools were inconclusive. Holley pointed out that if the Senate approved a change to the semester system, the students and the administration would have to be involved, and the issue would have to go before the Board of Trustees. He predicted the change to semesters could not be done in less than 4 years.
Ed Ramey observed that the main reason for changing to semesters appears to be the advantage of a Monday-Wednesday-Friday class schedule, which he said is already used in Civil Engineering because of the number of 3-hour classes. He suggested that such a format might be better than either the present 5-hour quarter courses or the semester system, because it provides time between class meetings for reading and reflecting, but also has the flexibility of the additional course offerings of the quarter system. Becky Liddle (CCP) expressed frustration with the quarter system because of the amount of time lost starting and ending the term, and wished for more time to go into depth in graduate courses.
Gordon Bond (Liberal Arts) said that, in his nearly 30 years at Auburn, this was the 6th or 7th opportunity he has had to participate in the semester versus quarter debate. He reminded the Senate that the quarter system was introduced at Auburn in 1941 as an emergency measure to enable students to graduate in 3 years so they could contribute to the war effort. After the war, many institutions changed back to the traditional semester system but Auburn, like others, remained on quarters. Bond asserted that, if Auburn University was serious about the quarter system, it would operate four equally funded quarters a year and encourage students to complete a degree in three years, as the quarter system was originally intended. At the present time, he said, the summer quarter is neglected: enrollment is less than half that of a normal academic term, it is funded differently, and faculty and students are not expected to teach summers. Yet, he pointed out, there are tremendous year-round expenses in terms of 12-month employees and physical plant costs. Bond pointed out that a semester system is not new--87% of institutions comparable to Auburn are already on semesters--so there are many successful models available. He admitted that he does not look forward to a major change in the academic calendar, but he maintained that we should consider what is best for the University and its students, and he concluded that he would vote for a semester system.
An unidentified speaker reported that he had talked with a friend at the University of Alabama who claimed their summer enrollment was only 15 to 20% of their 9-month enrollment, whereas Auburn's summer enrollment is 50%.
John Grover (Chair-elect) compared the debate to a statement by Yogi Berra, who observed that good pitching is better than good hitting and vice versa. Grover suggested that there had been enough discussion and called for a vote by division of the house.
David Himelrick (HF) interrupted with a point of information, requesting clarification of the voting process. He suggested a preliminary "straw vote" before the vote on the motion itself, because his faculty members had asked him to propose an amendment ordering a full faculty referendum if it appeared the Senate might favor semesters. John Grover recommended instead that the Senate vote on the motion that was on the floor, after which Himelrick could introduce a new motion calling for a faculty referendum. Chair Kent Fields called for a vote on the motion to accept the committee report recommending a change to a semester system. The motion carried by a vote of 44 to 33.
The Chair reported that the newly elected members of the Rules Committee are Glenn Howze, Becky Liddle, and Ida Reed.
NEW BUSINESS: None
RESOLUTIONS: None
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy J. Brunner, Senate Secretary