ABSENT: G. Swanson, M. Jensen, D. Shannon, H. Thomas, C. Johnson, B. Gray, J. Weese, R. Burgess, L. Payton, W. Alderman, D. Large, W. Walker, T. Boosinger, K. Zagrodnik, J. Hanson, G. Halpin.

ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): D. Rouse (J. Grover), D. Himelrick, J. Kessler), B. Gladden (M. Fischman), D. Icenogle (S. Dawsey), T. Love (T. Cooper), T. Lee (P. Sullerger), LTC Lawing (CPT Manges), B. Burkhalter (J. Fletcher), J. Henton (A. Avery) R., M. Bryant (W. Abner).

Senate Chair John Grover called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the October 1, 1996, meeting were approved as distributed and are posted to

https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/min_100196.html.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A. President's Office: Provost Paul Parks

Provost Parks relayed actions the Board of Trustees had taken at the November 8, 1996 meeting. There will be an increase in the health insurance premiums paid by faculty. Since we are self-insured, we need to maintain a claims reserve (25% of annual costs). The premium levels had not increased since February of 1993, and the upcoming increase will be approximately 5% effective January 1, 1997. There are two "cost containment implementation" changes: (1) Increase the major medical deductible from $100 to $150; and (2) Eliminate supplemental accident rider coverage. Another change was made in the program, with the implementation of the Blue Cross Participating Chiropractic Program. Finally, there is the prospect of an additional increase next year.

The resident tuition rates will be extended to students who reside in any county within 50 miles of the University. Act 96-663 gives power to the University Governing Board to make this decision. This change will influence students in nine west-central Georgia counties, providing those students meet admission requirements for non-resident students.

The Board approved the conversion to a semester calendar, effective Fall 2000. The University has been in contact with University of Tennessee, which switched to a semester calendar in 1988. All information regarding the transition at the University of Tennessee will be made available. Auburn has also followed the progress of Michigan State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, and VPI following their transitions.

A Campus Area Transit System, planned to begin in Fall quarter 1997, will be contracted with a private transportation company (yet to be chosen). The proposed fee will not be more than $12 per student per quarter and will allow students unlimited access on the system. A pilot project is planned for Summer 1997.

Finally, Parks discussed the Parking Improvement Plan as approved by the Board. A new parking lot will be constructed where the Max Morris Drill Field is now located, and will include the contiguous areas west of Donahue Drive. The estimated cost of the project is $5.8 million; this fee will initially be paid for by selling "Parking System Revenue Bonds", which will in turn be retired through parking permit cost increases. These increases will not go into effect until after the construction is completed, probably in 1998. The increases will be implemented over a two-year period.

J. Grover asked Parks to comment on the Nursing School situation. Parks said there has been an effort to create a joint committee between AU and AU Montgomery to consolidate the two Nursing programs. Both programs are relatively small, and there was discussion of consolidating them under one faculty body, one dean, and one curriculum. This will save administrative costs, as well as allowing faculty to exchange between campuses and students to transfer "back and forth". There was strong opposition to the consolidation plan by faculty and community leaders in Montgomery; because of this opposition, the Board of Trustees did not approve the plan.

R. Gandy (Physics) asked Parks what would happen if a faculty member decided to run for political office. Parks said there had been a member of the faculty who opted for a full-time position in an elected office. The matter had been brought to the dean of the college of the person and the department head. The department head wanted assurance that the person would not take off any time from his University responsibilities while campaigning, and his job performance would not be compromised. The faculty member signed an agreement to those requests. Also, the faculty member signed an agreement that if elected, he would resign from his position at the University immediately. This was actually a compromise to what is stated in the Faculty Handbook (i.e., the faculty member has to resign before qualifying for elected office).

B. Senate Chair: John Grover

Grover said he had received a lot of feedback about the Dental Plan. He felt the Senate followed the appropriate response in asking the Insurance and Benefits Committee to review their position on this issue and meet with the local dentists.

On November 1 and 2, 1996, several AU faculty met with the Alabama Council of College and University Faculty Presidents (ACCUFP). Larry Gerber finished his tenure as Past Secretary, and Yvonne Kozlowski agreed to serve another year as Secretary. Dr. Hank Hector, Executive Director of ACHE, discussed higher education funding at the state level. The Educational Trust Fund projected revenues will increase $175-200 million this year over past years, but most of the increase has already been claimed for in adjustments in PEEHIP and the Foundations Program (K-12). Other estimates are more pessimistic in terms of the level of increase in funding, but Dr. Hector did feel there is potential for a small increase in budgets (2-4%) for the four-year institutions, provided the Legislature would "get mobilized" in that direction.

Grover stated that ACHE has been charged with forming a student and a faculty database to guide the politicians in some of their budget deliberations. (We) strongly encouraged them to involve "real" faculty. There was discussion about a "Raising Junior Exam", which is similar to an entrance exam for transfer students, but would be for sophomores entering the junior class. The objective was to bring students into abeyance (in terms of their deficiencies) until they complete the appropriate remedial work. The "Higher Education Partnership" that was announced by the four-year institutions in Alabama was also discussed. This group will hire a spokesperson to make a better case for higher education. The ACCUFP group will meet with the Higher Education Partnership leadership as soon as it is in place.

The Senate charged the faculty leadership with creating a task force to work with Administration related to support for higher education in Alabama. (This was a direct result of the Deans' Statement, which was endorsed by the Senate.) Grover formed the task force, which included Deans Kunkel and Henton and the SGA legislative liaison committee members. The University is trying to mobilize the alumni, students, parents, and faculty to speak up for AU needs in terms of helping to relieve some of the financial stress. The task force will complement those efforts as well as look at some direct initiatives to be taken. At that meeting, Buddy Mitchell shared a letter that Jack Venable (Board of Trustees) sent to the AU County Committee members; this letter was a strong plea for mobilizing support. Grover said the Senate should be grateful for Trustee Venable's pro-active stance.

OLD BUSINESS: (Dr. Parks could not attend the entire Senate meeting so the discussion on the 21st Century Commission statement was conducted at this time. No objectives were noted.)

Herb Rotfeld (Chair, Programs Priority Committee) summarized comments on the 21st Century Commission draft state (provided with the minutes of the current meeting) and gave some personal concerns.

(1) No comments were received for Program Priorities.

(2) No comments were received on a statement in the Report stating, "caution must be exercised in consideration of new program commitments. In the face of limited funds, program reviews and institutional priorities should provide a basis for program consolidation and/or termination." In view of the recent decision by the Board to vote against the consolidation with Nursing, it raises some questions as to whether the Board would support consolidations.

(3) No comments were received on the statement, "Programs duplicated widely through the state and/or producing graduates for which the demand is low should be considered as targets for elimination."

(4) Rotfeld was concerned about comments he had received that indicated there were efforts made by "some Administrators" to ensure timely graduations by simply waiving the last quarter requirements or prerequisites for classes.

(5) Other comments received included the reward structure that the faculty has, because the 21^st Century Commission Report had a statement supporting the University's Outreach mission. Another memo Rotfeld received was regarding the fact that faculty members do not have Outreach as part of their job description, and therefore, do not do anything for Outreach.

(6) Other comments regarded out-of-state students and the Library. One comment was the Report makes no recommendations about maintaining, let alone improving, the quality of our holdings in the Library; the Report makes no mention or recommendations for goals, for collection and development, strengthening areas of weakness, or providing adequate staff in the Library; finally, the only message is the Library must operate "within available funding".

(7) Two comments were received about the Report not making a statement about the Honors Program.

(8) There was concern about lack of reference to international opportunities in the Mission Statement of the Report.

(9) Finally, one comment was a desire that faculty have some sort of resolution included with the document.

The resolution that Rotfeld would like to see is shown in Michael Melancon's handout (see attached). Comments regarding the Report were encouraged by John Grover, Barb Struempler, and President Muse; Rotfeld said the "apathy was overwhelming", considering only five or six comments were received.

J. Grover said President Muse has asked for the Senate's reaction to the Commission's draft report. Grover did not think the Commission would be ready to amend the draft statement, but would take any comments that are given to the Board.

M. Melancon (History) provided a copy of the resolution H. Rotfeld had read, and said it came out of the History Department. It was brought to the Steering Committee, but did not get included in the agenda for the present meeting due to a series of "snafus". The intent had been to have the resolution on the agenda so it could be voted on; Grover said the Committee had ruled it could be voted on.

Melancon noted in the Report, the faculty were not mentioned once (except for their obligations of teaching, research, and outreach). Melancon directed toward the Administration and the Board of Trustees that, "In the most profound sense, the faculty ARE the University." He hoped if the faculty wished, this resolution would go to the Board of Trustees. Melancon said in further versions of the Report, he did find something about bringing faculty salaries up to the regional average within five years. The University must attract and attain quality faculty in the three basic missions of teaching, research, and outreach. If the faculty is not honest to the Board, the students, the people of Alabama, and the Legislature about the absolute need for having the most high quality faculty, then we are wasting our students' and the State's money. One of the points of the resolution was to focus on supporting research for all faculty members; without this support, all fields that give background for specialty education will do so in a mediocre fashion. We will not be able to attract and attain outstanding people unless we support research functions across-the-board.

M. Melancon moved the resolution be sent to the Board as part of the Senate reaction to the 21^st Century Commission's draft report. G. Howze (Ag. Econ. & Rural Soc.) seconded the motion.

P. Parks stated not everyone was able to see the complete document, which may be part of the misunderstanding. In the final document, there is a revision statement for the Mission Statement, a report on the findings and recommendations the University commissioned, and a set of Institutional goals. Some of the concerns raised at the present meeting are addressed in the documents. Parks pointed out a portion of the Mission Statement: "In establishing the primacy of undergraduate education to the institutional mission, the University will assure the continued strength of its faculty with the realization that the quality of instruction is directly related to the quality of the University's faculty...." In terms of Institutional Goals, the statement is made: "...maintain competent and dedicated faculty, committed to quality programs, by according full recognition of the primacy of instruction in the reward system, and by bringing faculty salaries to regional averages in the five subsequent years." Melancon stated the resolution was made in response to the original document.

B. Trimble (History, Steering Committee) said one reason there was little response to the report is that it is difficult to understand what its recommendations are. A truncated version of the report is given on its Web-site, so it is hard to find the full document. He felt not having a section specifically for the faculty would be an omission.

R. Mirarchi (Zoo. & Wild.) asked Melancon if the first point of the resolution could be amended to include research and outreach. He wanted to include outreach in the third and fourth points. Melancon said the resolution was meant to focus on teaching and research, but now the issue of "outreach"; outreach will not enhance the instruction function of the University. However, if the University and the Senate want to include outreach, Melancon said he would accept it as a friendly amendment.

M. Fischman (Health & Human Perf.) wanted a justification for an item in the fourth point in the resolution, specifically how quality teaching is inextricably tied to active research. He asked how research in all fields would lead to improved classroom teaching. Is there "any evidence" to support those claims? Melancon stated research is self-evidently a process that renews a person's contact with his/her field, forces them to access new information, and brings a freshness to someone's approach. Grover mentioned surveys of the quality of teaching at non-research liberal arts schools is usually regarded as better than the four-year research institutions, which opposes the "conventional wisdom" that Melancon was referring to. Fischman called the Senate's attention to a 1992 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education where the author said teaching and research are inescapably incompatible. The author stated that a career that is spent building a reputation within a field does not make a person a better classroom teacher; this, the author stated, was particularly true with undergraduates. Melancon asked if the faculty wants to make Auburn into a non-research institution. Fischman said he understood the "spirit" of the fourth item and agreed research is an important responsibility of a major research institution such as Auburn. However, he was not convinced there is "a shred of evidence" to support the statements made in the resolution.

H. Rahe (Animal & Dairy Sci.) said this topic was addressed in a recent issue of Science. The National Science Foundation supported the close correlation between research and teaching quality.

The motion to include the resolution with the Senate's response to President Muse was carried by voice vote.

K. Easterday (Curr. & Teach.) saw a problem with tying outreach to the promotion and tenure issue. Grover said the promotion and tenure criteria in the Faculty Handbook were developed, it was explicitly included that outreach activities could be counted as teaching; the outreach component was not to be in lieu of the research component. Parks added the University has always required scholarship. Easterday stated, in terms of Education, the document referred to research only in regard to applied research. Grover said (they) would try to understand the sentiment behind the comments that were being made, and to send that information forward through the appropriate channels.

T. Smith (Family & Child Dev.) said there is the sentiment within his department about a lack of discussion of graduate education in the document, and they would like graduate education to be included. He said (they) saw no problem in valuing undergraduate education, but not if it was at the expense of graduate education. (They) feel that "developing leadership" also includes graduate education and leaders who are able to teach undergraduates and do research.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS:

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

A. Report from Faculty Salary Committee: Barry Burkhart

Burkhart provided the Senate with the Committee's report as well as some data that was generated. He thanked the Committee members; Paul Parks, Don Large, and Sam Lowther who are continuing members of the Committee, and the other members: Burkhart, Sandra Forsythe, Jim Worthington, Charlotte Pitts, and Jim Wall. He also thanked Glenn Howze for his "continuing vigilance" about this issue, and David Martin who has kept Burkhart informed about the issue.

He recognized the University is entering an era of "resource constriction" that is likely to continue. The 3% salary increase given this year was essentially cannibalized in part, out of the University budget.

Burkhart stated the Committee was formed several years ago; Gene Clothiaux was its first Chair. In order to develop the Committee report at that time, Clothiaux had to take the data from the archives and prepare it without any support from Administration. Burkhart said it was his pleasure to inform the Senate that the present situation is quite different.

The Committee's goals were provided with the handout (see attached). Burkhart said the effectiveness of the Committee could be evaluated by determining how many of the goals were met. He noted that the first goal should read "Establish and continue...." He said there would be two databases that are salient to the consideration of the Senate; one is the National Database (included in the second set of tables), the second is the SRPB averages (not included in the report). Goal Four represents a topic that has never had closure. "Salary" is only a portion of total compensation; insurance benefits, TDA benefits and other benefits also contribute to compensation. The Committee struggled with this goal and essentially "booted" it because they could not find a good way to compare total compensation; the recommendation of the Committee is to continue to try to represent that in a better way.

Burkhart explained the recommendations of the Committee (included in the report). In regard to "Part a of the #1 General Recommendation", maintaining the current composition of the Committee was recommended so it could continue to work collaboratively with the Administration. In regard to the #2 recommendation, Burkhart clarified the annual Faculty Salary Survey conducted by Oklahoma State University is the standard salary base used by most other institutions. "Part c of item #2" primarily means that medical schools will not be included in the data set because medical school salaries are much different from those at land-grant universities. When speaking of salary inequity, Burkhart likened it to deferred maintenance; if the issue is not dealt with, it will accumulate. The Committee felt this aspect of Auburn's policy for promotion was inherently unfair and unwise. When there has been raise money in the last few years, a portion of the money has been used for equity adjustment. (Liberal Arts is the exception this year, where there was no equity adjustments because that unit had no money to "cannibalize".)

Burkhart showed some data about promotion policies. Alabama's policy is 10%; Auburn's policy is $3000 upon promotion to Full and $2000 to Associate; Mississippi has $5000 for promotion to Full and $3500 to Associate. Auburn is at the low end of the distribution; Burkhart felt once the policy was decided on, it had "profound prophylactic value". One instance is when a faculty member is considered by peers for promotion at several levels of the University. That consideration and the award of promotion ought to be equitably compensated because it prevents "compression". He hoped that the next Budget Committee would come back to these recommendations for how promotion and raises should be adjusted.

When looking at the data in the tables provided, Burkhart pointed out Auburn is not at the national or regional averages. He felt was a very "significant" discrepancy, but also there is not much that can be done about it right now.

G. Howze thanked Burkhart and the Committee for the "fine work" that has been done. Howze then said that if we were to look at compensation rather than just salaries, Auburn would be much worse than what is shown by salary comparisons.

Chair Grover noted comparisons of benefits within others in the state have left us well behind. We were told by Hank Hector that the K-12 teacher compensation average is at the regional average, as it is for the two-year institutions. Adding in benefits package, which is particularly rich in medical insurance coverage, (it) is above the regional average.

D. Martin moved for acceptance of the Salary Committee's report, and offered a friendly amendment to it. He said in future years, the amount of money needed to bring Auburn's salaries up to the regional average be computed by the Committee. This ties in with the 21^st Century Commission's report, in that it is a goal of the institution to bring Auburn's salaries up to the regional average. His amendment was that future committees calculate the amount of money necessary to be in conformity with the 21^st Century Commission's goals.

K. Fields (Immediate Past Chair) seconded the motion to accept the Faculty Salary Committee's report and further that it (and subsequent reports) be used as a basis for salary adjustments.

H. Rotfeld (Mark. & Transp.) said it was clear that some departments need to come up to national or regional averages. He brought up the issue of variance within a department, such as when one faculty member makes much more that the others. Burkhart said Auburn is so "fundamentally under funded" we will be fighting just to stay where we are. Rotfeld asked that under "item #2, Part d, averages as well as ranges at Auburn be considered. Burkhart accepted this as a friendly amendment.

The motion to accept the motion was passed.

B. Report from the Insurance and Benefits Committee: Chair Stan Reeves

Reeves stated that the 5% increase in premiums would not be well taken by most people, and the (Senators) should remind them that Auburn has a self-insured plan. There is not an insurance company that is "gouging" us for higher profits. When our pool of money for insurance costs falls below a certain level, the University has to cut benefits, raise premiums, or in the current situation, do a combination of both. The rates were increases by 5%, major medical deductible was increases from $100 to $150, and the other issues Provost Parks mentioned earlier in the meeting. Those changes should keep us on par for this year.

Reeves reminded the Senate the deadline to sign up for the Dental Plan is November 15, 1996. This is a basic preventive plan, not really "insurance"; it covers routine cleanings, x-rays, etc. Currently, there is about 10% participation (400-500 people) in the Dental Plan. Some people are concerned about certain aspects of the Plan. First, there is a problem with dentist participation. Many people have found their dentists have not agreed to be a preferred provider, so individuals must choose between their dentist and this Plan. Reeves said the approach of using preferred providers is consistent with our Health Plan. The majority of the Committee members were convinced this would apply the best possible pressure on the dentists to keep their rates low. An alternative proposal was to reimburse a set rate; if the dentist is not a preferred provider, he/she can charge extra the fee that the University has agreed to reimburse. Reeves said the Committee did not anticipate the level of opposition they have received so far; a similar situation occurred when the Committee put into place the Pharmacy Plan. Since then, local pharmacists signed up (to be preferred providers). The Committee feels many dentists will eventually participate.

The other major concern was the cost of the plan versus what current dental expenses are. Many people did not feel the Dental Plan would benefit them. Reeves felt one of the perceptions was this was something the Administration had done to "keep people quiet". He reminded the Senators that this Plan was not handed down by the Administration, and that is was constructed by a committee of employees. The Plan was made in response to requests that the University have a Dental Plan. The Committee felt that if it went to the Board of Trustees with a very elaborate and expensive plan, it would be very unlikely that the Board would approve it. Therefore, the Committee decided to start with a simple Plan they felt confident the Board would pass. Also, they knew if they asked the Board to fund the Plan, the Board would turn it down and there would be no Plan. Reeves said this was a Plan that could be built upon.

Reeves provided a memo (attached) he generated in response to a form letter that some employees may have seen regarding the Dental Plan.

R. Gandy was concerned this Plan was not "dental insurance" per se, but allows people to have a check-up every year. He felt the goal should be a "real" insurance.

A. Dunlop (English) said he and other colleagues had a similar reaction to the Dental Plan. They can pay for their own maintenance, but wanted coverage for major dental expenses. Reeves said the Committee felt this Plan would be approved by the Board, and eventually, they would like to see a funded Dental Plan that would include basic dental care. It would be easier to first ask for a Plan that is not

really insurance, and then later ask for it to be funded or shared by the University. Reeves pointed out the Committee did look at other options for more elaborate plans that could be considered insurance, and those plans are quite expensive.

K. Fields said one of the major objections the local dentists have is if they sign on as preferred providers, they will be preferred providers for all Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans. For instance, if they have 10 other patients who have BC/BS coverage, the dentists will have to work for whatever rates BC/BS specifies for the entire practice. Fields did not think it was our business to put pressure on the local dentists to lower their rates, but we could specify what we would pay under our Plan. One plan recommended by the State and National Dental Society, "Direct Reimbursement Plan", pays back a relatively larger percentage of the premiums toward care than does BC/BS.

Fields did not question the sincerity of the Committee, but did not think all the plans available were considered. It seemed strange to fear the Board of Trustees will not allow us to buy something we will pay for 100%. He hoped before this Plan is considered it will include all of the possibilities. Reeves agreed it is important to recognize the position some of the dentists are in, and it is not fundamentally different from the position the doctors in the area are in. Reeves said it is important to think about the size of the plan if the intention was to get a small plan in to place that the Board might eventually pay for. If we submit a large plan and later "hint" the plan be covered by the University, it is unlikely the Board will approve it.

D. Martin had asked Ronny Herring, Director of Employee Benefits, to ascertain the number of participating local dentists. There are considerable discrepancies between materials some Senators have received from local dentists and their patients, and what is being circulated by the University.

Reeves clarified the Committee did look at Direct Reimbursement as well as many other plans and providers. Some of those plans were evaluated primarily by the past Chair of the Committee and Ronny Herring, and then reported to the Committee. Fields felt a lot of power was put in the hands of those two people. Reeves said the Committee recognized the biases of its various members, but he wanted to emphasize that Direct Reimbursement and other options were addressed by the Committee.

Grover thanked Reeves and the Committee for their report, and noted the figure of 61% participation for general dentistry in Alabama, with 48% in Lee County.

NEW BUSINESS:

Glenn Howze, Chair of the Membership Committee for the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), invited the Senate to join the Association for half-price on membership for the first year. He felt everyone recognized the importance of AAUP for the University and the profession nationally.

RESOLUTIONS: None

Chair Grover adjourned the meeting at 4:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara Struempler, Senate Secretary