Minutes

AUBURN UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

14 January 1997

Broun Hall Auditorium


ABSENT: T. Boosinger, M. Bryant, H. Burdg, A. Cook, S. Finn-Bodner, B. Gladden, B. Gray, R. Kunkel, D. Norris, L. Payton, B. Smith, A. Tarrer, H. Thomas, H. Tippur, W. Trimble, T. Tyson, W. Walker, R. Webb, W. York.

ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): C. Alderman (P. Cook), T. Bingham (L. Palmer), R. Burgess (T. Smith), A. Dunlop (D. St. John), S. Forsythe (G. Aycock), C. Hendrix (C. Brunner), J. Henton (J. Weese), R. Jenkins (R. Dellinger), D. Large (M. Smith), D. Martin (P. Johnson), R. Mirarchi (S. Dobson), G. Plasketes (*********), H. Rahe (B. Moss), G. Ramey (J. Morgan).



Chair John Grover called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the November 12, 1996, meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A. President's office: Provost Paul Parks

Dr. Parks began by saying that the Administration is trying to move ahead as quickly as possible regarding the transition to a semester calender. Christine Curtis (Electrical Engineering) has agreed to be the University Coordinator for the transition to the semester system.. Additionally, she has agreed to serve as Chairman of the Semester Transition Committee. Dr. Grover has agreed to serve as Vice Chairman of the Transition Committee once his Senate responsibilities have ended. Each college and school has been asked to establish their own transition committee, and each of the major service units have been asked to establish a similar committee. A representative from each of those areas will be placed on the university-wide Transition Committee. There will be also be additional faculty, student, and Core Curriculum Committee representation.

At the upcoming Board of Trustees meeting on January 27, 1997, Parks said (we) would initiate a discussion of the University's new vision and mission statements, as well as the report of the 21st Century Commission. The Board would be asked to have extended discussion on the Commission's plan, but not to vote on it at that particular meeting. The resolution that was passed by the Senate regarding teaching and research recognition would be put into the Board Book (???????), as well as the recommendations that were offered about the resolution by the Senate, administration, and faculty members. Parks felt that there would be follow-up discussions by the Board between its January and March meetings; hopefully action will take place on those recommendations at their March meeting.

B. Senate Chair: John Grover

Buddy Mitchell (AU's legislative representative) had told Grover that Governor James' budget had just gone to the legislative joint committee for presentation. Gov. James' projection was that the Higher Education Trust Fund would have an increase of about $130 million this year, which is about $8 million higher than the Legislative Fiscal Office had projected. The Legislature has between $120- $130 million of new money to "play with". Unfortunately, the Governor's budget proposal has level-funded higher education. The Auburn University budget has been decreased by $917,000 over the past year; $500,000 of that comes from disallowing the budget requests for the continuation of the line item that the Vet School had last year. The remaining $417,000 is to compensate for over-funding of money related to teacher retirement funding. In other aspects, the University will be level-funded.

Grover relayed to the Senate the different efforts that are being made regarding the funding situation. The Senate had charged that a task force be formed for working with the Deans (and other groups) to find proactive measures that the faculty and administration could do; Grover reported that task force continues to meet. The Deans are currently contacting their advisory council members, alumni, and other people to solicit their support for the cause of higher education. The University is also seeking proposals from advertising agencies, looking for a Spring publicity campaign. Representative Jack Venable (Board of Trustees) wrote to the Club Coordinators asking specifically for their support. The SGA group that deals with legislative affairs had a meeting scheduled with the State legislature, with the intent of voicing their concerns about higher education. Grover received a letter from the GSO asking if they could get involved in some way to support the cause. The University is also trying to contact the Lee County legislative delegations to meet with on campus to explain their position and efforts on behalf of higher education.

Decisions about and the allocation of resources would ultimately be made by the legislation, and those decisions would probably not take place until late in the legislative session. President Muse has engaged Lillian (*****Wu or Woo*****) to advise what his efforts might be in the political process involved in supporting higher education. Grover invited any insights that he could share with Wu/Woo**** during their meeting later in the week. He welcomed the Senate's participation and support. Grover mentioned that David Martin (Political Science) retired on January 1, 1997 (****Grover said he "chose to retire on the first on the year...", but did he mean this year or the coming year???); he had been providing the Senate with information about state legislative affairs. The University is now working with Buddy Mitchell, Pete Pepinsky, and Betty DeMent about their efforts in this cause.

S. Hanson (Steering Committee) asked what Governor James suggested the extra $120 million be used for; Grover said it would go to K-12 education, as indicated by Buddy Mitchell. Hanson mentioned that there was traditionally a 50-50 split money between K-12 and higher education, but Grover emphasized that "used to be" the case. Provost Parks added that higher education currently gets 26-27%. The Fiscal Office's list of recipients for the Educational Trust Fund included such organizations as the Music Hall of Fame. The total requests for new money were for $349 million, of which there is operatively $122 million. However, about half of that amount is ear-marked for the cost-of-living adjustment for last year and the PEEHIP funding that was absorbed by the retirement in its first year. There is actually closer to $60-70 million to "play with". Governor James was talking about a type of "coordinated management"; this idea had received opposition, especially from the minority institutions. (*****He is not clear about this topic*****)

Jane Moore has retired from the Athletic Committee; a replacement will be chosen from a volunteer list or from recommendations from Senate members.

The University policy about consulting has received some concern. President Muse asked the Senate to from a special task force to examine the language of the Faculty Handbook about the policy; Grover would be appointing that task force within the next few weeks.

President Muse gave the Senate a revised smoking policy on campus, and had asked for Senate feedback on it. Muse's memo of January 1, 1997, as well as the new policy, are attached with the current minutes. (**** Put in memo and policy ****).

K. Fields (Past Chair, Senate) asked how the new policy would differ from the existing policy. Grover pointed out that the new policy would be more restrictive than what is currently stated in the Faculty Handbook (Chapter 1, pages 8-9).

G. Howze (Ag. Econ. & Rural Soc.) moved to support the revised smoking policy; B. Felkey (Pharm. Care Sys.) seconded the motion. The motion to endorse the revised smoking policy was approved by voice vote.

B. Struempler (Senate Secretary) and Jennie Raymond (Senate Secretary-elect) would be representing the faculty at the Board of Trustees meeting on January 27, 1997, in Dr. Grover's absence. Any feedback regarding the report of the 21st Century Commission (or other topics) be forwarded to them to be aired at the meeting.

Grover concluded by saying that the next Senate meeting would be on February 11, 1997. Betty Burkhalter would be giving a presentation on the organization of the Office of Student Affairs.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS: None.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

A. Report from the Calender Committee: Chetan Sankar

Sankar began by acknowledging the other members of the Calender Committee: Randy Pipes, Sadik Tuzun, John Fletcher, Donald Spring, Teresa Tidwell, Richard Penaskovic, and Laura Palmer.

The proposed calender for 1998-1999 was provided with the minutes for the current meeting. Sankar moved to adopt the 1998-1999 calender; the motion to recommend the calender to the Administration was passed by voice vote.

Sankar then spoke about the proposed 1999-2000 calender, which would involve the transition from the quarter to the semester system. A draft of the guidelines for the transition was provided with the minutes for the current meeting. The Committee had a lot of discussion about if and how the Summer 2000 semester should be divided, but could not come to a conclusion; the matter would have to be resolved by the Transition Committee and the next Calender Committee.

H. Rotfeld (Mark. & Transp.) asked how the Summer semester would be credited considering that it is proposed to be shorter than the two others. Sankar said the Committee could not resolve that matter, and that it was still exploring different proposals. Grover pointed out that the summer session has to be "truncated" in a semester system, but the credit given will compensate for the shorter summer term.

K. Fields remarked that summer compensation under the quarter system had never made sense to him. He said that while compensation for the summer term should be 33.3%, it is a maximum of 25%. He encouraged the Calender Committee as well as other related committees to look at other universities' compensation plans. Grover was confident that would be a major concern for the Central Task Force.

C. Brunner (Pathobiology) recommended that the Committee "bite the bullet" on Item C of the draft guidelines, and to raise the number of class days to 75 per term. She referred to Ed Ramey (former Chair, Calender Committee), who gave a report that revealed that AU's number of class days per academic year is among the lowest of all comparable institutions in the southeast. Auburn has 141 class days in a year, as apposed to about 150 at other schools. Rather than suggest a minimum of 71 class days, which might "tempt" the University to have only 71 class days, Brunner proposed that the Senate say AU has an average of 75 class days per term. Sankar said that the average is 71-73 class days per term, and the Committee set a minimum of 71 as a guideline that can be changed. Brunner said she would be satisfied if the Senate "note[d] the concern" about the issue, although there are many people who feel that the number of days per term should be increased.

J. Hanson expressed the same concern as Brunner, and felt that Auburn's quarter system provided a minimal number of class days. He wanted the University to see the transition as an opportunity to move to 75 class days per Fall and Spring semesters, and that (we) owe it to the students to provide them with a full semester for their money.

C. Johnson (Comm. Dis.) mentioned that some schools do not teach class five days per week. Also, the semester system would result in a ten-month contract, and faculty is currently being paid for a nine-month contract. Grover said the salary issue would be taken into consideration.

L. Katainen (For. Lang. & Lit.) asked if teaching load was going to be taken into consideration with the semester calender. Provost Parks said that the intent was to not let the transition to semesters negatively impact teaching loads, and that some sort of equity be maintained in teaching loads; the Transition Committee would be asked to look at that issue.

H. Rotfeld said he would like the draft guidelines to somehow read that after the transition period, the intent would to be to have 75 class days (or equivalent) for all three terms. Rotfeld made the motion to instruct the Calender Committee to establish semester terms of 75 class days; Brunner seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 31-28. In light of the close decision, J. Hanson suggested that there be further discussion on what the opposing opinions might be.

B. Report from the Core Curriculum Oversight Committee: Carol Daron

The University Core Curriculum Oversight Committee has been receiving requests from various students (and their parents) that AU awards advanced placement and credit for the International Baccalaureate (IB) Program that is now offered in many high schools. It is a two-year program, which culminates in a series of "fairly rigorous" examinations; it is something similar to the Advanced Placement Program. Last year and during the summer, the Oversight Committee investigated the IB Program and was visited by a member of the Program's New York office. Also, the Committee met with one of the teachers from Auburn High School, where the IB Program is being implemented. After hearing numerous presentations, the Committee recommended to the Senate that the Committee approve the awarding of credit for core curriculum courses, according to the specific departmental recommendations in the core curriculum.

It has long been the policy of AU that any student who believes that he/she has superior preparation can petition a department and, if the department agrees to it, take an examination in a particular course. At the discretion of the department, the student may be awarded credit in that course. The University also awards Advanced Placement credit. The Oversight Committee recommended that AU accepts the departmental recommendation. The Committee's recommendation are attached with the current minutes. (*********get recommendation). Daron moved that the Senate approve the recommendation of the Oversight Committee. Chair Grover remarked that the Senate should wait to act on the motion because a written copy of the recommendation had not been provided.

B. Spencer (EFLT) asked for clarification about which departments will give credit. Daron said that, for example, the Physics Department will follow the same guidelines with the IB Program as it does for the Advanced Placement Program; a score of 5, 6, or 7 on the IB exam will allow a student to take a departmental exam for credit in a course. The recommendation includes only the core departments, being Physics, Mathematics, History, English and Art, Biology, and Chemistry. However, other departments will be able to participate in this process. Every year, the Admissions Department sends each department a statement inviting them to reconsider what has been done in the past. Some department heads have indicated that they would like to accept IB credit in an effort to recruit strong students. Daron pointed out that the main issue is to get the recommendation into the Bulletin so that prospective students will be able to take advantage of the opportunity.

C. Brunner asked if this was a matter that the Academic Standards Committee should deal with, regardless of whether the recommendation is dealing with core courses. Daron said that the Oversight Committee has always ruled on these types of issues, including AP crediting. Also, Brunner felt that a recommendation should state that decisions about the exams will be left to the discretion of the department, rather than list how each department currently stands.

G. Howze said it would be useful for incoming students to know what departments will participate in the crediting. Daron noted that University of Alabama lists in its catalogue the individual departments and the possibility of getting credit for certain courses and grades.

J. Hanson asked about "U" courses; Daron said there is not a policy for the "U" courses. The purpose of the recommendation is to find credit for students who may have taken equivalent courses at the correct level. Hanson asked if a student could petition to take an exam for the "U" courses, and Daron replied that that has never been done.

S. Dobson (Subst., Zoo. & Wild.) asked what grade a student would receive for this credit. Daron clarified that there would not be a grade associated with the credit, but just that the student would not have to take the course.

G. Swanson (Senate Chair-elect) asked if courses outside of the core curriculum would be included. Daron said there are other courses, just as there are with Advanced Placement credit. The policy of letting the departments handle those individually will still apply. The reason the Oversight Committee felt obligated to deal with this issue is that the Committee is dealing with core courses. For example, there are courses in history that the History Department agrees to give credit for on the basis is specific examinations, even though those courses may not be part of the core.

In regard to what courses should be considered by the Oversight Committee and what the Academic Standards Committee should handle, Chair Grover "asserted the privilege" (?????) that the action for the core courses remain with the Oversight Committee. Other courses should be acted on by the Academic Standards Committee.

J. Hung (Elect. Eng.) asked if, based on the current statement of the Committee, students might think Auburn's policy applies only to core courses. Daron said that if a student reads the Bulletin statement carefully, there should not be any confusion.

Daron then gave an update on the Articulation and General Studies Committee. The Articulation and General Studies Committee (State of Alabama) had a charge to develop before September 1, 1998, a state-wide freshman and sophomore level general studies curriculum to be taken at all public colleges and universities. It was also charged to develop and adopt by the following year a state-wide articulation and transfer agreement for the freshman and sophomore years, allowing the transfer of credit among all public institutions of higher education in the state pf Alabama. The Committee has worked on this charge for about two years and has developed a state-wide General Studies Curriculum. It requires two: (2) courses in Written Composition; four (4) courses in Humanities and Fine Arts; three (3) courses in Natural Sciences and Mathematics, one being in Mathematics; four (4) courses in History and the Social and Behavioral Sciences. The Committee has not yet come to a final decision on the area of "pre-professional courses", those courses that are applicable to the major of interest. At current, the General Studies Curriculum has been approved. All chief academic officers and deans of instruction at junior colleges in Alabama were all given a charge to submit proposals to the 19 discipline committees (composed of faculty from two- and four-year institutions). Those committees will meet and receive course proposals from each of the 16 four-year institutions and a single proposal for courses to be developed at the two-year system. The committees are to have their recommendations ready for the Articulation and General Studies Committee by March 14, 1997.

C. Brunner asked if Auburn's conversion to a semester calender in Summer 2000 will have an impact on this. Daron hope that would not be a problem, and that the thing that will be affected most is the core curriculum. Provost Parks added that the overall transition to a semester calender will involve not only looking at the core curriculum, but also working with the General Studies Curriculum.

Chair Grover asked Parks that if a junior college accepts Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate credit at a lower standard than Auburn would, is Auburn mandated to accept the junior colleges' acceptance of credit in transfer. Parks said that would probably be the case because the law requires Auburn to accept such credit; there should be a state-wide standard for such acceptance.

G. Howze asked Daron if she thought the state-wide standards will ultimately be lower than what is currently seen at Auburn. She felt they would be lower, but Auburn will be able to keep its own standard for its own courses. We will be able to maintain our own standards, but we must also accept transfer credit for the accepted courses. Howze said that over the years, the "flagship" universities have set the standards, not the junior colleges; he asked why that could not happen in Alabama.

D. Himelrick (Horticulture) asked that once these standards are implemented, will the junior colleges have increased influence in Alabama (not clear on either tape). Daron said that is an interesting possibility, but did not know what the impact will be. Chair Grover said that there is an effort to create databases that will flag feeder institutions where performance is substandard; (we) will then be able to assert (our) influence to bring their products up to standard.

OLD BUSINESS: None.

NEW BUSINESS: None.

RESOLUTIONS:

Resolution from the Members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee: Rex Gandy

A copy of the Resolution and a letter from the past and present members of the Committee were provided with the agenda for he current meeting. All nine voting members of the Committee have signed the letter (except for Provost Parks), as well three immediate-past members.

The Committee has found a problem with the situation of overrules. When the Committee originally makes a decision, it is forwarded to the president. At that point, the president can overrule the decision by informing the Committee what his reasons are. If someone is denied promotion or tenure and the president does not overrule the decision, the person is allowed to appeal. A new committee is formed (bringing on three previous members), and if the appeal is denied, the president has another chance to overrule the decision. The third type of overrule is when the President, having already not overruled the Committee's decision twice, changes his mind. This action has occurred in the Summer and even into the next academic year, which the Faculty Handbook states should not happen.

The Committee does not have a problem in the situation when there are close votes and the president reverses the decision. The overrules that concern the Committee are those when there are "overwhelming" votes one way or another. The Committee has been overruled 19 times in the past three years, with the approval rate being about 80%; this year these has been only two overrules. The procedures and principles involved in the over-ruling are causing "dissatisfaction" among the Committee members.

The Faculty Handbook allows the president to overrule in any situation, but written reasons are required and the decision must be rendered within the academic year. When the decision falls into the next academic year, problems arise because the Committee' membership has already rotated. Also, many times the reasons provided are "less than convincing". Gandy felt that many times the reasons are given to satisfy the requirements of the Faculty Handbook, and the Committee members are left to speculate as to what the real reasons are. In many cases the reasons are inconsistent; for example, a person is awarded tenure on an overrule because of strong departmental support, while another person is awarded tenure without such support.

To help remedy this situation, Gandy recommended that the Senate adopt the Resolution. He then cited an example of how the present process might be improved. At Stanford, any time the president wants to overrule the Committee, the Committee is notified first followed by a one-week waiting period before the candidate is notified. This allows the Committee to make any arguments to the president. The Committee also feels that the Faculty Handbook state that all relevant reasons be given when the president overrules a decision.

Gandy moved to adopt the Resolution, which would call for the formation of and ad hoc committee to look at the Handbook procedures. No second was required because of the endorsements provided with the letter.

J. Hanson offered a friendly amendment that the Senate Chair appoint the ad hoc committee rather than the whole Senate; this was accepted by Gandy and Chair Grover. Grover will later consult the Rules Committee about the matter.

G. Howze asked if the current situation is any worse than it was six to seven years ago. Gandy did not know because he has only been involved for about three years. Grover felt it is enough of a continuing problem to promote this Resolution.

H. Rotfeld helped clarify that in most of the cases, the president has overruled to the positive. Gandy said that individual cases vary, but sometimes the reasons given for the overrule do not follow the standards given in the Handbook.

M. Melancon (History) asked if there was any pattern to the overrules, but Gandy said there was not. Chair Grover felt that the one pattern he has seen is that there are legal liabilities created that make it in the best interest of the University to grant promotion or tenure; those legal liabilities are usually generated at the department head level through promises and actions that are not consistent with procedures.

K. Fields said that the Handbook is clear that "the criteria are the criteria", and there are certain minimum standards. Grover pointed out how verbal contracts have held up in court, and Fields suggested that we "go to court". Grover said that if that was the case, the courts would be awarding tenure. Fields said that if the Handbook needs to be revised to read "...unless there are legal ramifications...", then that change should occur. Although there was much effort in revising the Handbook as it now reads, there are still situations where the written procedures are not followed.

Grover said that the Handbook should be amended to declare that it has precedence over whatever decisions department heads (and others intermediaries) make that contradict it. J. Hanson jokingly suggested that the Senate form an ad hoc committee to look into that matter.

The motion to adopt the Resolution carried by voice vote. Grover announced that the ad hoc committee referred to in the Resolution will be formed, and invited any recommendations to be forwarded to him or the Rules Committee.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.