Minutes

AUBURN UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING
February 13, 1996

ABSENT: J. Bliss, S. Finn-Bodner, J. Hume, R. Jenkins, C. Johnson, D. Norris, T. Petee, J. Regan, C. Rahe, D. Teem, E. Thompson, T. Tidwell, R. Webb, R. Wilcox, J. Wilhoit.

ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): R. Beil (D. Whitten), B. DeMent (J. Lankford), S. Forsythe (D. Cavender), R. Gastaldo (C. Chalokwu), B. Gladden (D. Pascoe), J. Henton (D. Cavender), D. Himelrick (J. Kessler, Jr.), E. Ramey (R. Vecellio), I. Reed (H. Thomas), D. Rouse (J. Grover).

Chair Kent Fields called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the January 9, 1996, meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A. President's Office: William V. Muse

Fields announced that Dr. Muse was unable to attend today's meeting, but Provost Parks would answer any questions the Senate might have. There were no questions from the floor of the Senate.

B. Senate Chair: Kent Fields

Fields reported that the Executive Committee of the University Faculty has appointed a Nominating Committee, chaired by Gene Clothiaux, to nominate officers for the coming year. The search for candidates will be complete before the March 12 Senate meeting. Fields announced that Dr. Kim Wilcox from the National Center for Supplemental Instruction will speak at Broun Hall Auditorium on Friday, February 22, 1996. Dr. Wilcox's presentation is sponsored by the Office of Student Affairs. The Center for Governmental Services informed Fields that results of the faculty referendum on the quarter/semester issue would be tabulated by next week and forwarded to President Muse.

Fields then read a portion of a memorandum he had received from Muse, dated February 2, 1996: "I have approved the University calendar for 1996-97 that you recommended, with the exception of the Memorial Day holiday. Further reductions in the number of class days for the Spring quarter would not be wise at this time." Fields replied by memorandum on February 6, 1996, urging Muse to approve the Memorial Day holiday, which was passed by the Senate. He addressed the issue again when he and Chair-elect John Grover met with Muse on February 13. Muse stated that he would be open to consideration of the Memorial Day holiday for the 1997-98 academic calendar, but he said addition of the holiday must be justified. Fields said he and Grover agreed to do that if the Calendar & Schedules Committee and the Senate include the holiday in the 1997-98 calendar they approve. Fields told the Senate that the Calendar & Schedules Committee would present its recommendations for 1997-98 at the March 12 Senate meeting.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS: None.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

A. Steering Committee: Kent Fields--Report of Committee actions (Minutes of the February 5, 1996, Steering Committee meeting were distributed at today's Senate meeting.)

Fields told the Senate that the Steering Committee is required to report to the Senate any actions it takes between Senate meetings. Steering Committee business generally involves setting the agenda for the next Senate meeting, but this month it was asked to ratify a change in the previously approved calendar for Fall 1996. Ed Ramey, Chair of the Calendar & Schedules Committee, had requested that the first day of final examinations for Fall of 1996 be moved from Saturday, December 7, to Monday, December 9, to avoid a conflict with the first game of the SEC basketball tournament [actually, the conflict identified by Ramey was with the SEC Championship football game--CJB]. As a result, graduation would be held on Monday, December 16, instead of Friday, December 13. This change was approved by the Steering Committee.

B. Academic Standards: Richard Zalik--Report on study of grade inflation in undergraduate courses (A copy of this report was distributed with the agenda for today's Senate meeting.)

Zalik remarked that the information used to prepare the report was supplied by the Office of Planning and Analysis and is not found in the report in its original form. He also announced that the "average" grade point average (GPA) at Auburn University had risen to 2.78 since the calculations were done for the study. Citing an article in the New York Times which reported no evidence of grade inflation nationally, Zalik said the findings at Auburn were contrary to the national trend.

Richard Kunkel (Education) was granted privilege of the floor. Referring to the use of the word "average" on the first page of the report, he pointed out that the Auburn University Bulletin defines a "C" as "acceptable", not "average". Zalik denied that the report said a "C" should be considered "average", but he did contend that a "C" was once used as a rough measure of "average". He added that the Academic Standards Committee had attempted to establish a definition for a "C" grade last year but could not reach agreement. Kunkel reiterated his concern that, in its criticism of campus grading practices, the Committee had disregarded the grading policy described in the AU Bulletin.

Kenneth Easterday (CT) asked why the Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership Technology was listed three times in the table on page 9. Zalik explained that some departments had several different programs whose full names were not shown in the table. Easterday agreed with the conclusion that grades are being inflated, and with the report's allusion to a relationship between grade inflation and the implementation of mandatory student evaluations of teaching. He did not think, however, that changes should be made in funding in response to the findings of the report. He pointed to the Department of Curriculum & Teaching, which has a high GPA but requires students to have a 2.5 in the discipline before they can enter the program. Zalik interrupted to emphasize that high grades did not necessarily mean inflated grades--at issue was the trend.

Cindy Brunner (Secretary) referred to Figures 4 and 5 in the report and asked which colleges' GPA's had undergone a statistically significant change between 1980 and 1992. Rex Gandy, who had prepared the charts, said the differences were statistically significant "in all colleges with significant enrollment," but he could not recall the level of significance.

Michael Friedman (CH) advised that the Committee should have investigated the reasons for grade inflation before indicting people and recommending a remedy. Zalik asserted that the report was only preliminary, but Friedman pointed out that solutions were proposed.

Richard Kunkel asked Zalik to identify the GPA above which he considered inflation to have occurred. Gandy said the Committee defined grade inflation as an increase in the average GPA. He pointed out that the average GPA at Auburn had risen by 0.3 since 1980, while ACT scores had not risen enough to account for that change. Zalik added that grade inflation was also evident in the number of A's and B's awarded, but Kunkel argued that the number of A's and B's was not evidence of grade inflation; he offered as an example the Veterinary School, which has high entrance requirements. Zalik retorted that the Veterinary School could not have contributed to grade inflation because its grades were already high.

In response to a question from Steve Dobson (ZY), Gandy said the calculations were based on grades from courses at the 400-level and below. He explained that the mathematical formulas were described in Appendix 1 of the report, and that no specific student information had been used.

Jim Hanson (PS) moved acceptance of the report, and Cindy Brunner seconded the motion. Hanson said the report contained a tremendous amount of information, and an unbiased observer would conclude from it that grade inflation was occurring at AU. He accepted the recommendations, which he said were modest, and advised that the Office of Planning and Analysis make the raw data available for further study.

Cindy Brunner questioned whether the report's recommendations would lead to elimination of grade inflation. She argued that publishing grades would embarrass units that award high grades, even though the committee itself had stated that giving a higher-than- average number of A's and B's might be appropriate in some colleges. Brunner wondered why the entire university was being indicted for a problem occurring in only a few departments or colleges. Zalik said "reporting the facts" did not constitute an indictment, and "the truth" should not be hidden. "If an academic unit's grades are high, then it is that unit's responsibility to explain why they are high." Michael Friedman asked Zalik what he meant by "high", but Zalik responded that "high" grades were not the concern; rather, the concern was grade inflation. Friedman pointed out the importance of an accurate point of reference, and speculated that grades from years ago might actually have been too low. Zalik reflected on his personal experience of returning to undergraduate teaching after being "mostly concerned with graduate education and getting grants" from 1985 to 1991. He observed that students in 1992 "were not at the same level as they were in 1984...even though ACT scores are going up."

Winston Tucker (SGA) argued against acceptance of the report because it was preliminary--he thought some of the suggestions should be modified. Sadik Tuzun (PLP) said he would like to see a comparison of Auburn's grades with those of other universities, and Steve Dobson agreed. Zalik admitted such a comparison ought to be done, but he did not think the Academic Standards Committee should be responsible.

Michael Melancon (HY) said he began teaching at AU in 1984, and had not noticed a problem in lower-level courses; in fact, he had observed "superior performance" by students in upper-level courses. Jean Olds-Weese (NFS) reasoned that improved teaching effectiveness would result in improved student performance and higher grades, but such a change would have been interpreted by the Committee as grade inflation. Zalik offered what he said was an alternative explanation for higher grades: teaching assistants and untenured faculty give higher grades to improve their teaching evaluations.

John Grover interrupted the discussion to clarify the word "accept" in Jim Hanson's motion: Hanson intended his motion to mean the Senate agreed with the conclusions and recommendations of the report.

Sadik Tuzun said he could not accept the report because of the "serious charges" made on the floor of the Senate regarding untenured faculty members and teaching assistants. He asked whether those charges would be investigated and the findings made a part of the final report. He also reminded Senators that students evaluate their instructors before course grades are assigned. Rex Gandy said the report mentioned nothing about the use of teaching evaluations, but Richard Zalik again suggested that "untenured faculty and teaching assistants are inflating the grades they give, out of fear." He said it was his opinion that the decision by the Board of Trustees to require teaching evaluations for promotion and salary improvement was, "to a certain extent, coercive; and it has had a very bad influence" on grading practices.

Glenn Howze (AEC/RSY) said the committee's findings were useful but he was not willing to accept the report. He advised that the results should be discussed in schools and departments rather than on the Senate floor. Ulrich Albrecht (MH) supported the report. He agreed with Zalik's observation that students in 1984 were academically superior to today's students, but he added that students' grade expectations have risen. Ken Easterday said he appreciated the Committee's efforts, but could not support the recommendations because they were not justified by the data. He asked who would judge whether a college or unit was "maintaining academic standards." Zalik offered that the Academic Standards Committee had identified the problem of grade inflation; the University would have to determine what steps should be taken.

Constance Hendricks (NUR) moved the previous question; her motion was seconded and approved by a show of hands. Jim Hanson's motion to accept the Academic Standards Committee's report on grade inflation failed by a show of hands.

C. Faculty Welfare: Patricia Albertson-Zenor--Report on Committee activities (Copies of graphs presented by Dr. Zenor-Albertson are attached to these minutes; the complete survey results are on file in the Senate records.)

Albertson-Zenor described the Faculty Welfare Committee's activities over the past 18 months, and also reported results of a survey conducted by the Committee in the summer of 1994. The three main issues addressed in the survey were establishment of a "family emergency leave bank"; availability of professional improvement leave for administrative/professional and staff employees; and early retirement incentives. There was also an open-ended question at the end of the survey. About 2,000 replies were received to most of the questions.

Albertson-Zenor reported responses to the following questions [see attachments]:

  1. Should a family emergency medical leave bank be established?
  2. Would you donate sick leave?
  3. Would you donate personal leave?
  4. Should professional improvement leave be available to administrative/professional employees?
  5. Should professional improvement leave be available for staff?
  6. Would you participate in professional improvement leave if 100% of your salary was paid?
  7. Would you retire next year if the incentive package was equal to one year of your annual retirement pay?
  8. Would you retire after 25 years of service?
  9. Should an early retirement incentive be offered every year?

The issues identified as important in the open-ended question were the tuition waiver, dental and vision coverage, and child care. Albertson-Zenor said action had already been taken in regard to the tuition waiver, and the child care issue had been addressed by a special committee; she said the professional leave policy was the only concern that the Committee had not yet discussed with other people in the University.

Cindy Brunner asked whether professional improvement leave was a benefit offered to staff and administrative/professional employees at other universities. Albertson-Zenor said she did not know, but Herb Rotfeld (MT) reported that an ad hoc committee he chaired last year found no institutions offering such a benefit to staff members. Sadik Tuzun asked if action was being taken to obtain dental and vision coverage on the AU health insurance policy. Albertson-Zenor admitted that dental and vision insurance had been discussed for a long time, but she did not know if the Insurance & Benefits Committee was considering such coverage. Michael Melancon asked what had been done about child care. Provost Parks replied that a special committee had been appointed to study child care in response to recommendations by the Welfare Committee. He said he had received that committee's report but no action had been taken.

OLD BUSINESS: None.

NEW BUSINESS: None.

RESOLUTIONS:

A. Resolution concerning Total Quality Management (TQM): Michael Melancon

Melancon read a resolution proposed by the History Department concerning the applicability of TQM to a university:

"Whereas, the concepts of TQM and its derivatives have been applied widely in business management and other institutional operations, including universities; and,

Whereas, there is a growing experience base and knowledge about the impact of TQM operations within a university;

Therefore, be it hereby resolved: that the University Faculty executives forthwith appoint a special ad hoc committee of faculty members to

  1. Review the experience of faculty and staff who have worked through the application of quality improvement efforts in other universities and Auburn;
  2. Review the lessons learned by workers at other nonprofit organizations, such as the Armed Forces, where quality improvement methods have been applied;
  3. Evaluate the applicability of TQM-derived concepts to an institution such as Auburn, and include a practical cost-benefit analysis for the instruction, research, and extension missions of the University; and
  4. Evaluate the areas and sectors of the University and its administration that will undergo changes in conditions of employment as a result of implementation of a TQM- driven management system.

Such committee should make a formal report to the University Senate within twelve months."

Kent Fields accepted the resolution.

B. Resolution concerning pay raises: Gary Swanson (A copy of the resolution was distributed with the agenda for today's meeting.)

Richard Penaskovic (Steering Committee) remarked that the Board seemed to have told Muse to give one of the raises. He proposed a friendly amendment that would delete the words "...the University Administration and..." from the clause beginning, "Therefore...". Gary Swanson declined to accept this as a friendly amendment, so Penaskovic offered it as a formal motion which was seconded.

John Grover noted that Trustee John Denson's recent letter to local newspapers explained Leischuck's raise as having been initiated by a committee of the Board; Denson exonerated the University administration. Kent Fields said he "absolutely believed" that President Muse was instructed to grant "at least one of the raises in question." Swanson countered that Muse shared responsibility for the raises because he decided they needed to be rationalized. Michael Melancon argued that, without the amendment, the resolution attacked someone who "may be the best person we have." Glenn Howze reminded Senators that Muse had told them raises would not be given except for cases of promotion; Howze added that the late authorization of the raises kept them out of the budget book, thus reducing the likelihood they would be noticed.

Steve Dobson warned that Governor James and state legislators stay abreast of Senate activities, and he thought the Senate should keep that in mind in expressing its displeasure.; but he admitted he could argue the issue either way.

The motion to amend the resolution by deleting the words "...the University Administration and..." failed by a vote of 26 to 27. The motion to adopt the original resolution was approved by a show of hands.

C. Resolution supporting formation of AU Golf League: Jim Hairston (A copy of the resolution was distributed with the agenda for this meeting.)

Hairston explained the history of the idea of a golf league, and said he chaired a committee formed to investigate the options available. He reported that Auburn Links had offered an agreement allowing an AU Golf League to use its facilities for a reduced fee; courses operated by the Retirement Systems of Alabama had refused to negotiate such an agreement. Hairston moved adoption of the resolution supporting formation of an AU Golf League, and his motion was seconded.

Tom Smith (FCD) asked what was involved with a "sanction" from the University. Hairston replied that approval of the organization by the Senate and the Administration would probably result in greater employee participation. All current and retired employees, as well as their spouses, would be eligible to participate.

Pointing out that the term "adjunct" refers to University faculty members with responsibilities in more than one department, John Grover proposed a friendly amendment changing the word "adjunct" to "affiliate"; Hairston accepted this correction.

An unidentified speaker asked who decides whether an organization receives a charter, and whether approval of this resolution by the Senate would preempt other organizations from being sanctioned by the University. Provost Parks said the administration would consider the resolution to be an advisory opinion of the Senate, and competing interests would not be a problem.

Marie Kraska (VED) asked if part-time staff or consultants could participate. Hairston responded that anyone on the University payroll was eligible, but, under the group's current constitution, unlikely that consultants would be able to play. He speculated, however, that anyone associated with the University could play golf at Auburn Links if they were present with a member.

The motion to adopt the resolution passed by a show of hands.

A motion for adjournment passed by voice vote, and the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Cindy J. Brunner, Senate Secretary

Return to Meeting Schedule.
Return to University Senate home page.