ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): W. Alderman (P. Cook), R. Beil (D. Whitten), D. Collins (S. Tuzun), S. Forsythe (D. Camden), B. Gladden (D. Roscoe), J. Henton (D. Camden), J. Hung (T. Baginski), E. Moran (J. Renden), T. Regan (B. Fendley), S. Spencer (A. Gramberg) T. Tidwell (M. Bryant), J. Wilhoit (T. Tyson).
Chair Kent Fields called the meeting to order at 3:10 PM. Minutes of the November 14, 1995, meeting were approved as distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. President's Office: William V. Muse
Dr. Muse informed the Senate that the Alabama Legislature will not begin its regular session until early February, and it is too early to know how much funding higher education will receive in 1996-97. He said he would not be surprised if Governor James seeks further reductions in state appropriations for colleges and universities, but university officials will work with legislative leaders "to achieve the least damaging and most supportive result for AU."
Muse met with Senate Chair Fields and Chair-elect Grover shortly before the Christmas break to discuss their concerns about salary adjustments that occurred since the beginning of the 1995-96 budgetary year. He said he explained the guidelines that permitted salary adjustments in cases of reassignment of duties resulting from the filling of only 40% of faculty vacancies and 20% of administrative vacancies. After Muse met with Fields and Grover, Vice President Don Large informed Fields of approximately 35 cases where such salary adjustments had been made. These did not include the 78 faculty who received raises on October 1 because of promotion in rank. Muse said that, while there were some faculty on the list of 35, most of the cases involved administrative and staff employees. During the discussion with Fields and Grover, specific questions were raised about salary adjustments given to Gerald Leischuck and David Housel, both of whom report to Muse.
Muse explained that Leischuck works both as Muse's executive assistant and as the Secretary to the Board of Trustees, so changes in his job assignment or compensation require concurrence of the Board. Leischuck was eligible for the retirement incentive offered last summer and would have received "a substantial financial payment," had he chosen to retire. However, at the request of the Board, he did not retire. Subsequently, Mr. Jimmy Samford, the President pro tem of the Board, told Muse the Budget Committee of the Board wanted to "enhance Dr. Leischuck's salary as partial compensation for the loss that he incurred by not retiring." Muse said he told Samford that a salary adjustment for the reason cited, "while laudable, would not be appropriate." He explained that guidelines had been established calling for salary adjustments when jobs were restructured or additional responsibilities were assumed. He said he also told Samford that, during the past year, he had contracted out speech-writing responsibilities at a cost greater than $10,000, and he offered that Leischuck might be able to assume those duties. He added that, with two retirements in his office, responsibilities would need to be reassigned. Muse said he subsequently made those adjustments in Dr. Leischuck's assignment and increased his annual salary.
With respect to the raise given to Athletic Director David Housel, Muse reminded the Senate that the Athletic Department "is a fully self-supporting auxiliary, and it receives no state funds or tuition dollars." Multi-year contracts for the Athletic Director and several of the head coaches are negotiated individually, and adjustments can be made in their salaries when appropriate with the concurrence of the Athletic Committee of the Board. Muse said Housel was given a raise "to bring his salary more in line with that of other athletic directors within the Southeastern Conference."
Muse told the Senate he realized that many faculty members are also working harder this year because of increased enrollment and positions that have not been filled. He said he wished Auburn had a policy that would allow additional compensation for faculty when they assume "overloads", and he is willing to work with the Provost and Senate in developing such a plan. Muse said he regretted this "became an issue for some individuals." He told the Senate that the University's goal must be a reduction in the number of faculty, staff, and administrators, because that will be the primary means of obtaining the money needed for salary improvement. Muse added he was not optimistic about obtaining sufficient financial support from the State of Alabama to provide reasonably competitive salaries.
Muse reported that the faculty referendum concerning the academic calendar would be conducted in January by the Center for Governmental Services. Once the results of the referendum are in, he will decide on a course of action.
Finally, Muse announced that contributions to Campaign Auburn have exceeded $152 million toward the goal of $175 million. He said he was particularly pleased that the AU Faculty Campaign has raised over $1.5 million; its goal was $1 million. Muse thanked those who have participated, and noted in particular the Athletic Department's contribution of $250,000 for academic scholarships.
Jim Hanson (Steering Committee) asked Muse about the timing of his discussion with Mr. Samford and of his decision to assign speech-writing duties to Gerald Leischuck. Muse replied that he could not recall the dates precisely, but the discussion with Samford took place after decisions were made last summer about retirement, and Leischuck's assignment was changed after the meeting with Samford. Hansen asked when Leischuck's raise went into effect; Muse said he thought it was in November.
Gary Swanson (PS) noted that David Housel's raise did not meet the guidelines applied to other employees, because Housel was not assigned additional duties, and Muse said that was correct. Swanson remarked that efforts were made within the Athletic Department to maintain parity with other SEC institutions; yet, with respect to salaries, fringe benefits, and accessible parking for faculty and staff, no such attempt was made. Swanson asked Muse if he was troubled by this apparent double standard. Muse replied that he "didn't know anything about parity in parking or benefits," but he acknowledged that Auburn does try to maintain parity for its athletic program as it competes with other schools in the SEC. He added that, with respect to funding for academic programs at SEC institutions, Auburn is "far from parity there."
Glenn Howze (AEC/RSY) cited a report in the Chronicle of Higher Education which indicated that administrative salaries at Auburn are above, at, or just barely below the national averages. In contrast, Howze said, salaries for Auburn faculty are "in the bottom 20% nationally and well below regional averages." Muse said he had not seen that particular study but had examined salaries for individual administrative positions, and some were above and some below regional averages. He said Auburn's regional standing with respect to faculty salaries needed improvement, but money was necessary to do that. At present, Muse said, faculty salaries at Auburn are 93% of the regional standard. Howze disagreed, questioning whether those data were for Division I schools; and he added that fringe benefits at Auburn are 20% below those provided at other schools in Alabama. Muse did not comment.
David Martin (PO) referred to an upcoming summit on higher education and asked Muse how he would explain "selective" salary adjustments at a time when there might be substantial budget cuts. He argued there must be a consistent policy, with no exceptions, that can be defended to the Governor and Legislature. Muse said that focusing on the salary issue might make it more difficult to justify a request for additional funds.
Hardin Rahe (ADS) asked whether consideration had been given to decreasing student enrollment next year. Muse agreed that limiting enrollment was a strategy that could be explored. He added that the size of the University is one of the issues he would like to have examined by the Task Force assigned to study Auburn's long-term mission.
Bob Gastaldo (GL) recalled that Governor James criticized the amount of money each Alabamian pays for higher education (allegedly $131 per person). Gastaldo cited an article in U.S. News and World Report that claimed Alabamians spent $402 million on gambling in 1994, or about $100 per person. According to those figures, Alabamians spend almost as much per capita on gambling as they do on higher education. He asked Muse if such information could be used to support the argument that higher education in Alabama is not funded at a significant level. Muse agreed that Alabama spends more money per capita on higher education than any other state in the South except Mississippi, because it is sparsely populated and because it has too many institutions of higher education. He added that, despite this level of support, Alabama's institutions are under-funded on a per-student basis; but he said he did not know if gambling would be a solution to the funding problem.
Ulrich Albrecht (MH) asked whether the group negotiating an articulation agreement among Alabama institutions had considered reducing the number of junior colleges. Muse replied that closing some institutions to fund others would be difficult to accomplish. Bruce Gray (VAH) asked whether consideration had been given to offering another retirement incentive. Muse said it was unlikely such an option would be offered again in the foreseeable future. David Himelrick (HF) asked if Auburn had lobbying or public relations efforts to combat the funding problem. Muse said a full-time lobbyist works in Montgomery, and he (Muse) is also actively involved in lobbying. He said he would be meeting with key members of the Legislature, and would be inviting them to visit the campus. Himelrick suggested that the faculty could help with the public relations effort.
Jim Hanson asked Muse if he had received a raise in the past year, and Muse said no. Hanson emphasized that a large number of faculty and staff are upset about the raises for Leischuck and Housel. He asserted that Leischuck's speech-writing assignment was simply an excuse for giving him the raise; and he said this action reinforced the perception that members of the Board of Trustees "care about what they see" but have little appreciation for the efforts of the faculty and staff. Remarking that "actions speak louder than words," he asked Muse if he had considered decreasing his own salary by $10,000 to make up for the raise given to his assistant. Muse replied that he had "thought about that."
B. Senate Chair: Kent T. Fields
Fields announced that the University and Senate Committees are now accessible through the Auburn University Web page, as are lists of deans, directors, and department heads. The Web location of this material is https://auburn.edu/administration/president/au_president.html.
Fields also announced an error in the appointment of new members to the University Budget Advisory Committee. The Faculty Handbook stipulates an alternate-year rotation between faculty members and administrators representing the various colleges on that committee. Fields said there was confusion this year about how the cycle worked, and as a result, the rotation did not occur in some colleges. He assured the Senate that, next year and for all subsequent years, the rotation will be done as specified in the Handbook.
UNIVERSITY BUSINESS:
A. Changes in AU Conflict-of-Interest Policy: Michael Moriarty, Assoc. Provost & V.P. for Research [A copy of the proposed policy accompanies these minutes.]
Moriarty described efforts by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to ensure that their grantees have implemented procedures for handling actual and potential conflicts of interest. Guidelines for these procedures were published in the Federal Register on July 11, 1995, and they were made effective October 1, 1995. Moriarty said AU has drafted a policy that will bring it into compliance with both the NSF and NIH requirements.
Moriarty recommended that Auburn's existing conflict-of-interest policy be modified by adding the following sentence: "The President is directed to formulate, implement and publicize procedures to enforce this policy as required by applicable regulations." He then explained each of the four elements required in an institution's conflict-of-interest policy, and defined several key terms. The four required elements are: 1) A limited and targeted financial disclosure from the investigators; 2) Designation of a person or persons to review the disclosures and resolve any actual or potential problems; 3) Enforcement mechanisms which include sanctions if there is noncompliance; and 4) Arrangements for the institution to notify those funding agencies in the case of any conflicts that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the institution. Moriarty advised that the reviewer assigned to determine if a conflict-of-interest exists should be a dean, designated associate dean, institute director, or vice president--whoever is closest to the investigator. He explained that financial disclosures must be on file at the time a proposal is submitted to NSF or NIH; they must be updated annually during the term of the award, and also any time there is a significant change in the investigator's financial interests. He then described the one-page disclosure form. Finally, he announced his goal that the Board of Trustees consider the proposed change in Auburn's current conflict-of-interest policy at their meeting on January 29, 1996.
Referring to the new sentence, David Martin requested that the phrase "is directed" be replaced with "in consultation with the University Senate will...". Moriarty said he intended to involve the Senate if any other agencies issue similar requirements, so he "had no problem" with the change. Larry Myers (VPH) asked about proposals submitted between October 1 and the date of implementation of the proposed changes. Moriarty said the President authorized provisional use of the proposed changes until the Board makes a decision on them. He added that proposals which have already been submitted are being "cleaned up" to meet the new guidelines.
B. Information on re-centering of ACT scores used for admission: John Fletcher, Director of Admissions.
Kent Fields announced that John Fletcher requested deferment of his report until a later meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
A. Research Grant-in-Aid: Suggested changes in grant review process: John Heilman (Chair of the ad hoc committee assigned to study Research Grant-in-Aid programs) [A summary of the ad hoc committee's recommendations accompanies these minutes.]
Heilman explained that the study committee he chairs was established in May 1994 to look at the two types of Research Grant-in-Aid programs: the "discretionary program," in which a faculty member can apply for a $500 grant to support research-related activities; and the "competitive program," in which up to $3,000 is provided. Membership on the study committee consisted of: Heilman (Assoc. Dean, College of Liberal Arts), John Weete (Assoc. Dean, College of Sciences & Mathematics), Jeff Gorrell (Assoc. Dean, College of Education); George Mitrevski (Foreign Languages & Literatures); Ross Silberberg (Architecture); and Ben Hajek (Agronomy & Soils). The committee's recommendations were developed over an 18-month period and were modified after review by the associate deans for research. Heilman said his committee's recommendations were presented to the Senate committee responsible for reviewing the competitive grant proposals (the Research Grant-in-Aid Committee), which he said expressed unanimous approval of the recommendations. He then described the recommendations.
One "minor" recommendation of the study committee was to change the name of the competitive program from "Grant-in-Aid" to "Competitive Research Grant." A more significant change involved the structure of the review process. Heilman said members of the "Review Committee" [Research Grant-in-Aid Committee] have traditionally worked as one review body, with all members reading all of the proposals, whether they were qualified to review the merits or not. The study committee proposed that the reviewers be organized into three topical areas, and that the three committees review proposals only once a year instead of twice. Heilman said the study committee recommended that the purpose of competitive grants continue to be to help new faculty initiate and develop their research programs, and to help more senior faculty who were entering new research areas. However, the study committee recommended a change in eligibility for competitive grants: it proposed that full-time faculty at the rank of instructor or above be eligible to apply for competitive grants. Heilman said this would include "not only tenured and tenure-track faculty, but also non-tenured faculty," but, "Postdoctoral students and adjunct and visiting faculty would not be eligible." The study committee recommended continuation of the policy that proposals be judged according to specific, weighted criteria. They suggested that the review committees have the authority to suggest modifications of proposed budgets; and they advised that evaluation sheets be given to grant applicants to provide them with feedback. Finally, the study committee proposed a streamlined application form which is being tested this year.
Heilman then described recommendations affecting the discretionary program. The study committee recommended that the number of grants that can be awarded to an individual each year be increased from one to two, but that the total amount awarded per year not exceed $500. They also advised that support be continued for reprints and page charges, but that the range of supportable activities be broadened to include expenses involved in conducting the research, as well as those involved in disseminating the results. Until this year, $5,000 has been allocated each year from the discretionary grant budget to support travel to meetings by graduate students presenting their thesis or dissertation results. Dr. John Pritchett asked the study committee to consider an increase in the amount designated for graduate student travel to $10,000. The committee supported that request, but recommended those funds also be used to support the early stages of a graduate student's research, not just travel to conferences. Finally, the study committee recommended that the discretionary grant funds be distributed through the Office of the V.P. for Research. That office would allocate funds to each college or school; then, within each college, the dean or associate dean could allocate funds to the departments throughout the year. The study committee advised that decisions about the amount of money given to each college or school be made within the Office of the V.P. for Research.
John Grover pointed out that "post-doctoral" is an employment category at Auburn, not a type of student. In addition, he said, "adjunct" refers to an AU faculty member who is "shared" by two departments; the term "affiliate" is used in reference to someone employed outside Auburn University. Grover also asked whether non-tenure track research faculty such as research assistants, research fellows, and senior research fellows would be eligible for grants. Heilman said the intent was to include those people; he noted that this is a change from past policy which limited awards to tenure-track faculty. Grover reiterated that "post-doctoral" is an employment category within the faculty, so those individuals should be eligible to apply, and Heilman said the study committee would review that point. Grover suggested that research assistants should not be eligible for competitive grants, but research fellows and "post-doctorals" might be. Heilman said the opinion of the committee was that the limited resources should go to people whose University positions were relatively permanent. Grover then noted that an instructor, though eligible for a competitive research grant, does not hold a research position.
Cindy Brunner (Secretary) suggested that the committee should work closely with the Provost's Office in establishing the eligible job categories. Heilman asked if the general intent of the recommendations was acceptable, provided that the terminology and job categories were corrected. Tammy Lee (Library) pointed out that Library Information Science was not included on any of the topical committees, but should probably be added to Committee B. Brunner noted there was no area on the application form where the applicant could suggest the topical committee to which the proposal should be assigned. She also asked if assistance could be given to the Rules Committee when it identifies faculty members interested in serving on the topical review committees. Heilman said it was important to identify reviewers according to their topical areas rather than their departments, and he was comfortable with the prospect of working with the Rules Committee on this.
Ken Easterday (CT) remarked that the recommendations for the competitive program lacked guidelines about allocation of funding. Christine Curtis (Assoc. V.P. for Research) responded, "Stipulations for the competitive program were sent to the faculty in November and the committee did not change those recommendations at all--those stand as they were." Ulrich Albrecht criticized restriction of the grants to full-time faculty, noting that faculty are being hired on part-time appointments because of the budget shortfall. Heilman said the study committee was "sensitive to that" but recommended limiting eligibility to full-time faculty because of the scarcity of resources.
George Mitrevski, who was a member of the study committee, raised an objection regarding the allocation of discretionary money to colleges by the V.P. for Research. He pointed out the absence of guidelines stipulating what should happen with discretionary funds once they reached the deans' offices. Mitrevski added that eligibility for the discretionary funds was not addressed in the study committee's guidelines. He suggested that faculty should have as much input as possible in how their college's discretionary money is used. He also recommended that the deans' offices allocate that money to specific departments, and the departments be informed in advance how much money they will receive.
Brunner moved that the recommendations be referred to the Senate Research Grant-in-Aid Committee for review and rewriting, and that the revised recommendations be brought to the Senate at a later date. She expressed concern that many decisions had been made by an ad hoc study group rather than by the relevant Senate committee. Heilman noted that the Senate Research Grant-in-Aid Committee is responsible for the competitive program, but has no role in the discretionary program. Kent Fields pointed out that V.P. Moriarty was responsible for both programs. He suggested that Moriarty work with the Senate Grant-in-Aid Committee (which he chairs) to make revisions in the competitive portion, and take the section on discretionary grants back to the study committee for revision. Brunner modified her motion accordingly, asking that recommendations pertaining to competitive grants be referred to the Grant-in-Aid Committee, which will return them to the Senate after revision. Glenn Howze seconded the motion. Heilman remarked that the Senate Grant-in-Aid Committee had already reviewed the recommendations "in great detail, and was quite supportive of all of them." The motion passed by a show of hands.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: None.
RESOLUTIONS:
Copies of a resolution concerning the salary increase given to Gerald Leischuck were distributed by Gary Swanson. Fields noted that the resolution would be revised to include the name of David Housel, Athletic Director, and he accepted the resolution for discussion at the next meeting. [A revised copy of the resolution accompanies these minutes.]
A motion for adjournment was passed by voice vote, and the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy J. Brunner, Senate Secretary