ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): A. Marshall (Gray), O. Jenda (Leonard), J. Lechner (Sabo), S. Spencer (Katainen), B. Gladden (Pascoe), S. McFarland (Bohanan), C. Hendricks (Martin), G. Swanson (Hanson), D. Vaughn (Vodyanoy).
Chair Kent Fields called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m., remarking that attendance appeared to be down because it was Summer Quarter. Minutes of the June 13, 1995 meeting were approved as distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. Senate Chair: Kent Fields
Fields informed the Senate that President Muse and Rick Dellinger were unable to attend today's meeting, so the agenda would be shorter than planned. Fields announced a Continuous Quality Improvement Conference to be held on campus October 22-25, and said that materials could be obtained from the Provost's Office, the College of Engineering, or the College of Business, which were co-sponsoring the conference. Fields also updated the Senate on the retirement incentive offered during the summer. Participants included 56 tenure-track faculty (resulting in savings of $3.3 million), 61 non-tenure track faculty ($3.3 million), 41 administrative/professional employees ($1.8 million), and 59 staff ($1.2 million). Fields pointed out that tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty represented over half the total retirees and 69% of the salary savings.
UNIVERSITY BUSINESS:
A. Report on anticipated cancellation of journal subscriptions: Bobby Holloway, Acting Dean of Libraries
Holloway said he had been asked to speak to the Senate about recent decisions made in anticipation of serials cancellations by the library. He pointed out that the library commits $2.4 million to serials subscriptions. Vendors have projected an increase in serials costs of 10-15% for the upcoming year, which could increase the cost of serials subscriptions by $300,000 to $350,000. Holloway said that two committees had been established to study the problem of serials costs: one consisted of librarians appointed by Dr. Highfill, and the other was a group of faculty appointed by the Senate Library Committee. According to Holloway, the person serving as liaison between the two groups left the University; the committees rarely met and did not accomplish their objectives.
The committee of librarians told Holloway they planned to cancel titles that are available by document delivery--but the savings would amount to only $11,000.00. He said he wanted the Head Librarians of each of the floors (Science and Technology, Humanities, and Social Sciences) to identify serials in their area that could be canceled to achieve savings of 5%, 10%, or 15% of their floor's serials budget. He pointed out that the fourth floor has a serials budget of $1.4 million, so their cuts would be substantial.
Holloway said he was advised by Evelyn Brannon, chair of the Senate Library Committee, that faculty were concerned the cuts were being made without consulting them. He said cuts had not been made yet; the librarians were just identifying titles to cancel and would submit their lists to the Senate Library Committee for review. He argued there would not be time for other faculty members to review the lists and appeal the titles to be cancelled, even though the deadline for cancellation was later than usual this year (October 1, 1995). Holloway said his main worry was the continued increase in serials costs, with the resulting need to cancel subscriptions. He admitted concern that, although A.U. ranks 62nd among Association of Research Libraries in the number of serial titles received, it ranks only 76th in the number of paid serials. Most of the rest are no-cost government documents: of the 19,600 serials the library receives, only 9,000 are paid subscriptions. He said that historically, the library depends on the A.U. Administration to provide the money needed to continue serials subscriptions, but that is not likely to happen this year. Because of continued funding problems, no new serial subscriptions have been purchased for several years.
Holloway warned Senators that cutting the book budget was not an acceptable solution to the serials problem--new book purchases had already dropped from 40,000 per year to only 23,000 per year. Furthermore, he pointed out, even though the Science and Technology Library has "by far the greatest preponderance of journals," it also has the heaviest circulation--and he suspects this reflects the use of books by students.
Doug Leonard (DMS) asked if a list of journal titles is available electronically for faculty review; Holloway said none was available at present but one could be provided. Bob Gastaldo (GL) asked whether A.U. faculty on journal editorial boards could be asked to donate their complimentary journals to the library so those subscriptions could be canceled until sufficient funds are available. Holloway questioned how much money this would save; he also said this approach had been tried and problems arose when faculty were slow in submitting their copies. Mike Friedman (CH) asked whether lists would be sent to departments and schools indicating the prices of the journals in their respective disciplines, and the amount of the proposed cuts. Holloway replied this was not part of his plan, and he did not think there was sufficient time. He reminded Senators of some of the problems involved with departmental review, including the time required and the complications posed by interdisciplinary journals. He predicted that A.U. faculty would eventually become tired of prioritizing journals and would lose interest; furthermore, he said, there wasn't enough time to wait for their responses. Cindy Brunner (Sec.) advised Holloway that the faculty would let him know when they were no longer interested in what journals were being canceled. She suggested that lists of relevant titles could be sent to each college or school for review by the local library advisory committees, and this process could be completed in time to meet the librarians' deadline of August 25. Holloway said this was an acceptable approach if the response was prompt.
Mike Friedman asked how the librarians would know what journals to cut; Holloway said the decisions would be based on the librarians' familiarity with what journals are being used on their floors. Cindy Brunner inquired how librarians know which journals are being used when most are not checked out. Holloway replied that librarians ascertain journal use by observing which journals need to be reshelved, assisting library users who need help with journals, examining access records of journal indexing systems, and so forth. Herb Rotfeld (MT) observed that ranking of journals from this type of information was "an idiosyncratic method based on ineptness" of the users--people who need the most help are the ones whose use determines the journal rankings.
Holloway asked the Senate for advice, but cautioned that, regardless of the approach used, some faculty would be unhappy. He also reminded Senators of the short time frame in which the cuts must be made, and suggested that faculty could be involved in planning for cuts in future years. He said lists could be provided for departmental review, but if he did not receive recommendations in 3 or 4 weeks, he would have to act without faculty input. Jim Hanson (PS) asked that the faculty be kept fully informed, and suggested that a standing list be provided by colleges and schools so that cuts could be made from lowest-ranking journals whenever necessary. He also advised that additional cuts might be necessary to allow for subscription to new journals. Holloway agreed that a system was needed to free up funds for new subscriptions, even at the expense of existing journals. Alex Dunlop (EH) expressed concern that the Senate's only role has been to facilitate compliance with journal cancellations. He advised the Senate to use its influence to intervene in the budgeting process and attempt to obtain adequate funding for journals.
Holloway said he would sent lists of journals to each department for review. Jim Hanson asked that the lists be made available electronically, and Holloway agreed to do so.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
A. Graduate Council: Revised requirements for Ph.D.--John Pritchett (Chair of Graduate Council and Dean of the Graduate School)
Pritchett described changes in course requirements for the Ph.D. that were adopted by the Graduate Council in Spring 1995. He recognized the efforts of Donna Bohanan (HY), chair of the subcommittee that developed the revised requirements.
The previous credit-hour requirement for the Ph.D. was 80 hours of coursework beyond the bachelor's degree plus 12 hours of "799" (Research and Dissertation), for a total of 92 hours. Pritchett acknowledged that many people thought this requirement was excessive; a reduction in the coursework requirement has been discussed many times. The new policy calls for a marked reduction in the number of hours of graded coursework required for the Ph.D., although the total number of hours required remains the same (92 hours). Of the first 46 hours (not literally the first 46 hours taken), 30 hours must be "graded graduate coursework while enrolled as a doctoral student" at A.U.; the remaining 16 hours may be graded graduate coursework transferred from the master's degree. The second 46 hours may be comprised entirely of "799", for students in those disciplines in which research is the primary focus of the degree; in other disciplines, the second 46 hours might be a combination of "799" and graded graduate coursework. This change is intended to allow departments more flexibility in their Ph.D. programs. Bohanan agreed, citing the wide range in credit-hour requirements for the Ph.D. degree at comparable institutions surveyed by her committee. She pointed out that departments wishing to retain the current coursework requirements can do so within the new policy.
Bohanan also mentioned that the Graduate Council is trying to raise the minimum for "799" from 12 to 15 hours, to more accurately reflect the effort spent by students and faculty on dissertation preparation.
Pritchett announced a second change adopted by the Graduate Council during Spring Quarter: institution of a course entitled "GS (Graduate School) 690/790." Intended for a student who has completed his or her required coursework and is "putting the finishing touches" on the thesis, dissertation, or research, this course confers no credit. However, it signifies to the Registrar's Office that the student should be certified to lending agencies as a full-time student. Bob Gastaldo asked whether 690 must be taken in conjunction with 699, and Pritchett replied that the student must register for one hour of 699 concurrently with 690. Gastaldo pointed out that a student registering for 690 plus one hour of 699 to work on a thesis might demand considerable effort from the major professor--effort that would not be credited to the professor or the department. Pritchett replied that a student using University resources only minimally should not need to register for credit hours that do not reflect activity. He said the change was developed primarily for the benefit of students and not to generate student credit hours. David Martin (PO) asked if there was a limit to the number of quarters a student could register for 690 or 790, and Pritchett answered that the limit was 4 quarters. Martin asked if that meant a student could be "putting the finishing touches on" a thesis for up to a calendar year, and Pritchett said that was correct.
B. Faculty Grievance Committee: Report of Activities--Jane Martin
Martin said the Faculty Grievance Committee wanted to begin reporting regularly to the Senate, with the understanding that the confidential nature of the committee's work prohibited identification of the parties involved. She stated that 5 formal grievances were filed with the 1994-1995 committee; formation of hearing committees was approved for 4 of those cases. One case was completed, recommendations were made to the President, and action was taken; 2 cases are in progress this summer; 1 case was resolved without a hearing; and 1 case was postponed in an attempt to resolve it without a hearing. In addition, the Faculty Grievance Committee has recommended establishment of an ombudsman to assist faculty with issues that do not fall under the auspices of the Grievance Committee as outlined in Chapter 2 of the Faculty Handbook. Martin gave as an example the 30 to 45 inquiries she received regarding football tickets.
David Martin asked whether, under the Muse Administration, recommendations made to the President's Office were being acted upon promptly. (Jane) Martin replied that, during her term as chair of the Grievance Committee, the President's Office has acted quickly to resolve grievances. Kent Fields remarked that he supported the committee's recommendation for establishment of an ombudsman.
[At this point in the meeting, Vice President Ferguson volunteered to investigate a siren that had begun to wail; he returned to announce that a fire alarm was sounding in the hallway outside the Auditorium. Kent Fields recommended that the remaining business on the agenda be completed expeditiously.]
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
RESOLUTIONS: Resolution honoring Auburn University retirees (copy mailed with the August 8, 1995 agenda)
John Grover (Chair-elect) moved adoption of the resolution; there were multiple seconds. The motion was approved by a voice vote.
Kent Fields thanked outgoing Senators for their service and adjourned the meeting (hastily) at 4:00 p.m.,
whereupon the room was evacuated.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy J. Brunner, Senate Secretary