ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): N. Singh (Brown), A. Wilson (Smith), S. Forsythe (Cavender), J. Hung (Hodes), M. Jacobson (Dunlop), M. Jensen (Hudson), D. Rouse (Plumb), D. Himelrick (Williams), R. Nataraajan (Rotfeld), S. Gropper (Bell), B. Berger (Felkey), T. Petee (Cavender).
Chair Kent Fields called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. in Broun Hall Auditorium. Minutes of the May 9, 1995 meeting were approved as distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. President's Office: William V. Muse
President Muse reported actions taken at the Board of Trustees' meeting on June 5. A 7.1 percent tuition increase should produce $3 million in new revenue to help meet anticipated cuts in state appropriations. The retirement incentive will save money by freeing up faculty and staff positions. Once the budget is passed, the administration will determine how many vacant positions are needed to balance the budget, and remaining positions will be filled using program priorities guidelines.
Academic program priorities were presented to the Board at the June 5 meeting. Dr. Muse acknowledged that much work still needs to be done to refine the program prioritization process; for example, he said that he was not satisfied with the quality measurements that were used to evaluate academic programs. He has asked Dr. Parks to reconsider the priority classifications next year and make appropriate adjustments. The administrative services prioritization should be completed by August 18, the date of the next Board of Trustees meeting, and will be available for consideration in developing the 1995/96 budget.
Muse reported that, starting June 14, open meetings will be held across Alabama to seek input from citizens about Auburn's outreach efforts. Dr. Muse commended Vice President Wilson in organizing these efforts.
Referring to the issue of out-of-state tuition, Muse explained that Auburn receives 4500 to 5000 applications from nonresidents each year and enrolls 20 to 25 percent of those students, despite limited out-of-state recruiting. Auburn's nonresident tuition is 3 times the in-state rate, the highest for any Alabama institution. A high percentage of out-of-state students meet the Alabama residency requirements established by ACHE after one year. Muse said the residency criteria are being examined to determine if they should be adjusted. He noted that nonresident students contribute diversity and quality to our campus and provide a significant economic impact in our community.
Ed Moran (PH) asked whether the tuition increase might affect in-state enrollment. Muse replied that the 7.1 percent increase in tuition is not significantly different from increases in previous years, and Auburn's tuition remains below state and regional averages.
Carol Johnson (CD) asked if vacant positions in top-priority programs would be filled first, and whether an open position in a low-priority program would be transferred to one with higher priority. Muse said he could not answer precisely, because those decisions were the responsibility of the Provost. He said the intent is that all vacant positions will be placed in a central pool and the Provost will use the program priorities to determine which positions are refilled. It should be assumed that a position in a top priority area is likely to be filled before a position in a low priority area, but final decisions will depend on how much money is restored to the budget. Johnson asked when the hiring freeze would end, and Muse answered that the freeze would be lifted once the 1995-96 budget is determined. He warned that if there is a major cut in the budget, many of the positions that are currently vacant will be eliminated.
Conner Bailey asked whether the priorities for administrative services would be announced in time for their consideration by the Budget Advisory Committee. Muse replied that those priorities would be presented to both the Board of Trustees and the Budget Advisory Committee around August 18. He noted that the University would not submit its 1995-96 budget to the Trustees for approval until October 5.
George Wallace (BSC) inquired whether contingency plans had been developed in case the tuition increase and retirement incentive did not compensate for the budget cut. President Muse stated that Vice President Don Large presented a contingency plan to the Trustees at their last meeting. Muse said the plan included cuts in operating costs, spending some contingency reserves, and using any uncommitted monies.
Cindy Brunner (Sec.) asked for the names of the members of the Task Force on Administrative Priorities. Muse recalled that the members include Yvonne Kozlowski, David Martin, the Vice Presidents, and Dr. Gerald Leischuck as chair. He offered to provide a complete list for the Senate record.
B. Senate Chair: Kent T. Fields
Kent Fields announced that the administrator evaluations are being processed and reports will go out in approximately 3 weeks. He also reported on the retirement incentive that was approved by the Board of Trustees. The plan includes annualization of 9-month salaries at 1.25%. Fields reminded Senators to communicate to their constituents the criteria for participation in the retirement incentive program.
Glenn Howze (AEC/RSY) asked how many faculty had accepted the retirement incentive. No one recalled the exact number, but Ron Herring said 110 people had signed up for an information session concerning the offer.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
A. Calendar and Schedules Committee: Report on proposed 1996-97 and 1997-98 calendars--Ed Ramey. (The report was distributed with the agenda for this meeting.)
After praising the members of his committee, Dr. Ramey reviewed the proposed calendar for 1996-97. Although the Senate approved that calendar in November 1994, Ramey said that President Muse objected to the late start of Fall Quarter. To comply with Muse's request, the committee moved the starting date from Thursday, September 26, to Tuesday, September 24, and lengthened Fall Quarter by one class day. Ramey then reviewed the rest of the proposed 1996-97 calendar.
He pointed out that graduation for Spring Quarter of 1996-97 was moved to a Friday, because students' families and alumni prefer that graduation be held close to, if not during, the weekend. To accommodate this, Spring Quarter was lengthened by one class day. Ramey mentioned that Auburn's academic year contains fewer class days than those of 12 other southeastern institutions studied by the committee--the range was 142 to 152, compared with only 141 class days at Auburn. The committee considered this discrepancy in their decision to lengthen Fall and Spring Quarters each by one day. Ramey also admitted that the week-long Thanksgiving break was controversial but had been supported by students and the A.U. administration, as well as approved by the Senate, so the committee decided to schedule it.
Becky Liddle (CCP) registered concern that Winter Quarter for both 1996-97 and 1997-98 contains only 8 Mondays. She said this limits contact time in classes that meet only on that day each week. Ramey responded that instructors in the life sciences want classes to start late in the week so they can orient students before the laboratories begin.
Robert Smith (AC) asked why Memorial Day is not a University holiday. Ramey replied that Memorial Day historically has not been on the Auburn calendar. He added that the committee has avoided scheduling holidays in Winter and Spring Quarters so that the academic year can end as early as possible. Dana Vaughn (VPH) agreed with Smith, pointing out that Auburn is behind other institutions in recognition of Memorial Day. Ramey suggested this issue be considered after the quarter vs. semester debate is resolved.
Noting that Memorial Day is already a national holiday, Richard Penaskovic (Steering Comm.) moved that it be designated a University holiday beginning in 1996-97. Kent Fields argued that the 1996-97 calendar needed to be approved quickly because of approaching deadlines. Fields asked for parliamentary guidance from John Grover (Chair-elect and Parliamentarian), who pointed out that Penaskovic's request was relevant to the issue under consideration. Discussion then ensued regarding the impact of adding a holiday to Spring Quarter.
Penaskovic moved to add the Memorial Day holiday to the 1996-97 calendar and to all subsequent calendars, and Dana Vaughn seconded the motion. Ramey warned that 3 exam days had already been added to the year, so quarter breaks were shortening. Winston Tucker (SGA) proposed to amend the motion so that one class day would be deleted from Spring Quarter to compensate for Memorial Day, and Penaskovic accepted this as a friendly amendment.
Doug Leonard (DMS) asked for an academic reason why Memorial Day should be added to the calendar. Robert Smith replied that Memorial Day honors those people who died defending their country, and, as a veteran, he considered that sufficient reason to celebrate the holiday. Bob Gastaldo (GL) remarked that attendance in his classes drops significantly on Memorial Day anyway.
Kent Fields called for a vote on the amended motion to add Memorial Day to 1996-97 and to all subsequent calendars, and the motion passed by a show of hands. Ramey asked for acceptance of the 1996-97 calendar as revised. Fields called for a vote, and the proposed calendar was approved by a show of hands.
Ramey then reviewed changes to the provisional calendar for 1997-98, and moved its acceptance. Fields called for a vote, and the 1997-98 calendar was approved by a show of hands.
B. Insurance and Benefits Committee: Report on health insurance--Sherida Downer
Sherida Downer distributed a handout comparing the cost and coverage of the A.U. and PEEHIP health insurance plans for retirees. She said President Muse asked her committee in February to review retirees' health insurance. One concern was the long-term obligation incurred by A.U. with its coverage of retirees; a second concern was the fact that the cost of retirees' premiums exceeds the amount they contribute. The committee acknowledged there are ethical and moral issues to consider when changing retirees' insurance coverage. However, Downer said, the committee also recognized that the present system places a financial burden on current Auburn employees who must subsidize the retirees' program.
Downer said that, after studying 5 different strategies, the committee concluded that retirees presently on the A.U. plan should be moved to the state PEEHIP plan. The committee also recommended that A.U. pay the difference in cost of the retirees' premiums as well as the cost of two additional coverage options (dental, eyeglass, etc.) to which retirees are entitled as state employees. Downer described the details of the Auburn University and PEEHIP plans. She admitted that the committee could not agree on the length of time A.U. should cover the additional costs of PEEHIP coverage for its retirees. Downer claimed the change would result in savings of $485,000 per year to current employees and $378,958 per year to the University, despite the cost of subsidizing the difference in premiums. The committee recommended those savings be used to enhance faculty benefits, such as increasing the matching on tax-deferred annuities.
Finally, the committee recommended a change in the pharmacy plan for current employees so that reimbursement for generic drug purchases would increase to 100%.
Robert Gastaldo asked whether the committee made a recommendation to President Muse regarding the length of time that retirees' PEEHIP premiums would be supported by A.U., and Downer repeated that the committee made no recommendation. Glenn Howze asked if the PEEHIP and A.U. policies differed with respect to choice of doctors or acceptance outside Alabama. Downer reported that both are PMD plans managed by Blue Cross & Blue Shield, and they are very comparable. Downer admitted she had difficulty obtaining information from PEEHIP personnel about their plan. She pointed out that Auburn faculty and staff already pay for PEEHIP coverage indirectly because its costs are included in the Education Trust Fund budget each year. Richard Penaskovic asked how the projected $900,000 savings would be used. Downer reiterated that the committee recommended the savings be used for additional tax-deferred annuity benefits. Carolyn McCreary (CSE) was concerned that using the savings for tax-deferred annuity enhancement would benefit affluent employees, while those earning lower incomes would not profit. Downer agreed, but noted that it is difficult to make benefits completely equitable. Becky Liddle suggested that the $900,000 savings be used to reduce employees' share of the cost of premiums. Downer said that an additional $900,000 would have little impact on the cost of premiums, which are approximately $17 million per year.
Marcia Boosinger (Library) asked what action was expected of the Senate, and Downer replied that no action was necessary. She said she was simply reporting the recommendations that the committee gave to President Muse. Kent Fields mentioned that the Board of Trustees advocated moving retirees to the PEEHIP plan immediately, without the "window of opportunity" that has been proposed by the committee. Downer observed that the University Senate was not given a vote in the matter because the change is an administrative decision. Alex Dunlop (EH) asked if retirees were given an opportunity to respond to the committee's recommendation. Downer replied that they had not had such an opportunity, because the decision is administrative. She said the administration is sensitive to the retirees, and wouldn't want to do anything negative to them "until it's a last resort." Downer also stated that the retirees have no group with which this proposal could be discussed.
Kent Fields commended the work of the Insurance and Benefits Committee, and reminded the Senate that no action was needed on this report.
C. Library Committee: Report on serials subscriptions--Evelyn Brannon
Evelyn Brannon reminded Senators of the serials cuts that resulted in cancellation of 20 percent of paid serials subscriptions in 1993-94. She recalled that, prior to those cuts, the Periodicals Review Committee reviewed new serials requests, but that committee has been inactive since then because no requests for new serials could be considered.
Concerns about the composition and operation of the Periodicals Review Committee led the Library Committee to appoint an ad hoc group of 10 teaching and research faculty and 3 librarians. The ad hoc committee was asked to make recommendations regarding serials review policies, as well as develop procedures to be followed if serials cuts became necessary. Brannon stated that, in February 1995, Dr. William Highfill appointed a separate ad hoc committee consisting solely of library faculty. Highfill asked his committee to develop "procedures to achieve and maintain a balance between monographs and serials; procedures for reviewing existing serials subscriptions and subscription requests; and procedures related to electronic access including costs." In April 1995, Highfill also asked the committee of librarians to "develop a set of procedures to identify journals and other serials subscriptions to be cancelled to meet budgets at various levels."
According to Brannon, the 2 ad hoc committees will work together this summer on contingency plans for a budget reduction. She said if elimination of serials subscriptions becomes necessary this fall, the plan developed jointly by these committees will be used to decide which serials will be cut.
Brannon explained that funding for the library since its admission to the Association of Research Libraries has not kept pace with the cost of maintaining an adequate research collection. She said the Library Committee prepared a letter warning of the impact of budgeting on library quality and encouraging adequate funding of the library.
Brannon also mentioned the upcoming change in Dr. Highfill's responsibilities. She praised his interactions with the Library Committee and referred to a resolution passed by the committee that commends Dr. Highfill for his service to Auburn University. She asked the University Senate to consider a similar resolution at its next meeting.
Richard Penaskovic reminisced about money that was given to the library by former football coach Pat Dye and wondered if the Athletic Department had offered to provide support again. Brannon said that, while such one-time support is helpful, the library cannot depend on those funds for collections development. Dana Vaughn requested that Brannon ask the Athletic Department for support anyway, and Brannon agreed to do so, but reiterated the preference for a long-term commitment of support.
Cindy Brunner asked whether faculty would have an opportunity to appeal the cancellation of journal subscriptions. Brannon said she did not know, because the contingency plans were not complete yet. She admitted, however, that there probably would not be time for appeals because of the short interval between approval of the 1995-96 budget and the deadline for subscription cancellation. She suggested that the University Senate should pursue this if Senators are concerned about it. Doug Leonard asked how faculty could find out which serials will be cut. Brannon said that the ad hoc committees should have their plans in place by the beginning of Fall Quarter. Kent Fields asked if Brannon would return to the Senate to report which serials would be cancelled. Brannon said either she or the new committee chair would do so.
D. Faculty Salaries Committee: Preliminary report--Dan Gropper
After thanking his committee members for their efforts, Gropper said that data analysis is still underway so a final report is not ready. Using overhead transparencies, Gropper described what the committee had learned about the distribution of raises given the last time there was a salary increase. He assured the Senate that copies of the tables would accompany the committee's final report.
First, Gropper compared Auburn's promotion raises to those of other SEC schools. Some institutions, like Auburn, award a fixed dollar amount for promotion, while others award a percentage of the annual salary or a combination of the two methods. He mentioned that one concern was the difference in promotion raises for 12-month versus 9-month faculty at Auburn. While 12-month faculty receive a fixed amount, 9-month faculty receive that same amount plus a percentage of their summer teaching salary, so their promotion raises are compounded. Gropper said the committee is studying this issue. Dana Vaughn asked where Auburn's promotion raises ranked in comparison to other SEC schools. Gropper replied that Auburn was near the bottom of the list; he noted as an example that the University of Alabama gives 10% across-the-board raises for promotion.
Next, Gropper discussed the mean and median raises given across colleges last year. He mentioned that the raises ranged from 5 percent to 9 percent, and were fairly evenly distributed across colleges, being influenced most markedly by the number of promotions within a college.
Gropper then presented a table comparing equity adjustments given by deans and by the Provost's Office according to the formula developed by the Faculty Salaries Committee. He used another table to display the distribution of equity raises according to rank, noting that most of the equity money was allocated to full professors.
Finally, Gropper distributed a handout containing a proposed modification of the equity formula. The principal change was imposition of a 12-year cap in the number of years in rank for full professors. Gropper explained that, while years in rank are already capped for assistant and associate professors at 6 and 10 years, respectively, the absence of a cap for full professors resulted in unrealistic comparative salaries for full professors with many years in rank. He asked Senators to review the revised formula and to expect to vote on the final report during Fall Quarter. Doug Leonard cautioned that there were "at least 4 mathematical mistakes" on the handout.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
RESOLUTIONS:
A. Resolution regarding faculty referendum on calendar system: Dave Williams substituting for David Himelrick (This resolution was distributed with the agenda.)
Williams had no comments concerning the resolution; he recommended its adoption as presented and Glenn Howze seconded the motion.
Robert Gastaldo asked why the resolution stipulated surveying all faculty, rather than just teaching faculty. Arguing that a change to semesters would not affect faculty who hold research appointments "because they have no contact with students," he urged that the referendum be distributed only to faculty who teach. Williams pointed out that a calendar change would have an impact on faculty who have even a small teaching assignment, because it would affect their research schedules. Kent Fields noted that the resolution calls for demographics to be collected concerning the appointment of the respondents. Dana Vaughn said that his appointment is 100% research but he employs students in his laboratory, so his activities would be influenced by a calendar change.
Richard Penaskovic remarked that the Senate already voted to move to the semester system and now appeared to be in danger of reversing itself. He maintained that the Senate represents the faculty. Fields noted that the question of whether the Senate represents the faculty was implicit in the call for a faculty referendum. Conner Bailey reminded the audience that this is the "University" Senate, whose members include "a large number of administrators," as well as students and staff. Therefore, he contended, a vote of the Senate on the calendar issue did not necessarily represent a vote of the faculty.
Cindy Brunner suggested that information sought through the proposed faculty referendum had already been collected by the ad hoc committee in its survey earlier this year. She noted that the committee's survey included non-tenure track faculty, some of whom have teaching duties. Dave Williams replied that he thought the intent of the resolution was to obtain the greatest possible faculty response. He said a key issue was that each department had only a single vote on the Senate, regardless of the size of the department or the strength of opinion of its faculty.
Ed Ramey (CE) stated that he supported the resolution because of the importance of the issue and the amount of effort that would be required in changing to semesters. He said he viewed the proposed referendum with more seriousness than the survey taken by the ad hoc committee--"...when you get 'em, you throw half of 'em in the trash can...". Carl Hudson (FI) contended that the committee's survey had given the faculty an opportunity to vote on the issue, and, if faculty disregarded a survey on something as important as quarters versus semesters and threw it in the trash, "there's your vote."
Glenn Howze claimed the Senate vote was being represented as a vote of the faculty when it was not. He said the only way to give the faculty a voice is to hold a referendum. Kent Fields countered that he did not believe the Senate vote was being held out as representing a faculty vote.
Cindy Brunner said she had supported the quarter system on the ad hoc committee and in the Senate, but the vote of the Senate should be accepted. She asked what role the Senate really had in university governance if Senators decided now that a faculty referendum was necessary on this issue. Brunner suggested that a change to semesters might be rejuvenating for the faculty. Kenneth Easterday (CT) said he thought the Senate had agreed at its last meeting to allow a resolution of this type to come forward. He said the Senate vote should stand, but there should also be a vote of the faculty. Yvonne Kozlowski (Immed. Past Chair) questioned where the money would come from to conduct the survey, noting that the Senate lacks the necessary funds.
Herbert Rotfeld (MT) observed that, of all the important academic issues he had seen decided by the Senate, this was the only one being turned over to a vote of the faculty because the Senate was not considered representative enough. James Wilmoth (VED) contended that the vote on the Senate floor had been close, and he suggested that a referendum might alleviate his concern that the issue had been "railroaded". Fields countered that many months had been spent studying and debating the issue, and he would not characterize the process as railroading. James Hairston (AY) supported the resolution because he was more comfortable if the faculty had an opportunity to vote. Dave Williams commented that, in contrast with other issues, his faculty unanimously supported the resolution.
Becky Liddle pointed out that, according to the resolution, a faculty referendum must be conducted before any recommendation is presented to the Trustees. Liddle was concerned that a delay in conducting the referendum because of its cost might prevent the Senate's recommendation from going forward. Yvonne Kozlowski noted that faculty who hold 9-month appointments would not be on campus this summer to vote in the referendum. Dave Williams said he thought it was reasonable to wait until Fall Quarter, but Cindy Brunner said she thought David Himelrick wanted the referendum to be conducted as soon as possible.
Brunner moved to postpone further consideration of the resolution until the next meeting, and Kozlowski provided a second, but the motion to postpone was defeated by a show of hands.
Ed Ramey suggested changing the resolution to allow the Senate's recommendation to go forward even while the campus-wide referendum is underway. John Grover said the results of the Senate's vote had already been presented to President Muse, and Muse would decide whether, and when, to present a recommendation to the Trustees. Ramey offered an amendment striking the phrase, "...prior to any recommendation being brought forward..." and inserting, "...with the results communicated..." [to the Board of Trustees]; this was accepted as a friendly amendment by Williams.
Barbara Struempler (Sec. Elect) called for the question, and Fields asked for a vote on the amended resolution. The resolution was rejected by a vote of 22 to 23.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy J. Brunner, Senate Secretary