ABSENT: T. Bingham, T. Boosinger, C. Dupree, R. Gastaldo, B. Gladden, D. Himelrick, D. Icenogle, C.
Johnson, D. Large, B. Liddle, L. Peyton, J. Renden, A. Tarrer, D. Teem, H. Thomas, H. Tippur, R. Webb, W.
York.
ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): C. Alderman (P. Cook), H. Burdg (D. Mixson), B. Felkey (R. Pearson), R. Jenkins
(W. Foster), T. Love (S. Kramer), E. Moran (R. Norton), J. Weese (L. Bell), A. Reilly (D. Lustig), R. Burgess (D.
Rehm).
The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the February 11, 1997, meeting we approved as distributed and are posted to
https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/min_021197.html.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. President's office: William V. Muse
Muse gave an update on the legislative budget process. The Alabama House of Representatives
approved an Education budget roughly two weeks before the present meeting that provides for a 1% increase
in funding for the institutions of higher education in the state. This budget will be acted upon by the Alabama
Senate sometime later in the session. Efforts will be made to increase the appropriations for higher education
in the Senate; Muse guessed this increase would be another percent or so. The likelihood we can get an increase
any greater than that is "slim", and there is even a possibility that no further gains will be obtained. Mr. Donald
Large is continuing to meet with the University Budget Advisory Committee to help determine how best to
approach the budget process for next year.
In regard to the semester transition process, Muse commended Paul Parks, Christine Curtis, and others for their work so far. Muse pointed out that all of the two-year schools in Alabama are going to be moving to the semester system, effective Fall 1998 (with the exception of Southern Union State Community College; they will convert in Fall 2000). A bill has been introduced in the Legislature that would require all colleges and universities in Alabama to move to the semester system.
J. Dane (Agr. & Soils) asked about the new position of Executive Vice President that has been created,
and how that position had been filled without conducting a national search. Muse said the position of Executive
Vice President existed when he came to Auburn, and George Emert had filled that position. Rather than fill that
position at the time, Muse brought in Gerald Leischuck (who at the time was Secretary of the Board of Trustees)
to serve as Executive Assistant and Secretary of the Board; he filled a role similar to that in the interim period.
In looking at the process for replacing Dr. Leischuck, who is retiring at the end of March, Muse had numerous
discussion with the Board of Trustees because the person in that role works for the President and very closely
with the Board. What they worked out was an arrangement whereby the responsibilities of that job would be
shared between two individuals; Mr Large would assume many of the responsibilities that Dr. Leischuck had as
Executive Assistant, and Lynn Hammond would assume the responsibilities of the Secretary to the Board of
Trustees. This was the decision that was reached. In essence, there was not a search because two individuals
who were already on the staff had their job responsibilities enlarged. Mr. Large retains his responsibilities as the
Chief Financial Officer, but takes on additional responsibilities and his title is changed to Executive Vice
President. Ms. Hammond continues to serve as Assistant to the President; she has her job enlarged and has been
retitled "Assistant to the President/Secretary to the Board". There was not a search; there was an attempt to fill
that responsibility by two existing employees who were already with the University.
Dane asked Muse, "... you can just enlarge somebody's responsibilities, and then create a new position,
and put that person in that position without a search?" Muse said, "I don't think I said that," and Dane replied,
"Well, that's what I heard you say." Muse answered, "Well, you weren't listening very carefully." Dane then
added, "I thought when you came here, you had the option between choosing between (sic) an Executive Vice
President and a Provost, and at that time, you selected a Provost." Muse replied, "No, that was not the case.
The position of Vice President for Academic Affairs took on the additional title and the broader responsibility
as Provost. That should not be confused with that of the Executive Vice President." Muse said he has
encouraged every unit, every Vice President and Dean, that when they have a vacancy, they not fill that vacancy
but rather look at a way to absorb those responsibilities internally and perform that job with fewer people. Muse
had tried to follow his own advise in doing that in this case. Dane commented, "That only applied to
administrators," to which Muse said, "No, it doesn't apply to administrators; it can apply to faculty as well. If
you have a faculty vacancy that you do not want to fill and you can fill that by increasing the responsibilities of
others, it seems to me you can follow the same logic. Throughout the University this is a challenge we have, to
see if we can do the same amount of work with fewer people, because in the long term, the funding is simply
not going to be there to sustain the work at the level that we've done it (with the number of people we've done
it)."
B. Semester Transition: Paul Parks
The Guiding Principles for Conversion to Semester Calender and the Guidelines for the Semester
Curriculum Academic Calender, 1997-2000 was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. Revisions
to the documents were provided at the meeting (attached).
Parks felt the University Transition Committee has made "very fine progress" under the leadership of
Christine Curtis. Parks also acknowledged the contributions of John Grover, who is acting as Vice Chairman
to the Transition Committee, and is also on the Executive Committee.
A small Executive Committee was assigned to handle the day-to-day responsibilities of the transition.
The committee was responsible in creating the documents and revisions. The University Transition Committee
has representation from the University, the community, and AUM; this will be the guiding committee for the
whole process. Dr. Curtis will begin to talk with students about the guiding principles and the guidelines for the
transition. Parks had a meeting with the Deans' Council. On April 14 at 3:00 p.m. there will be an open forum
in Broun Hall Auditorium, in which the Committee will fully discuss the documents that have been circulated
throughout the University. Parks invited any written comments regarding the documents or the open forum to
be forwarded to either himself, Dr. Grover, or Dr. Curtis.
Parks then highlighted some of the issues presented in the documents. The Committee felt it was important to have a series of principles that would be the overall guidance for the transition. There are many difficult issues to be dealt with, and Parks hoped to receive input that would help to answer some of the unresolved questions. He pointed out there are no "sacred cows" in the process. All aspects of the curriculum would be looked at in the transition. Parks emphasized the
transition would not merely be a switch from quarter to semester curriculum; it is an opportunity to make the
curriculum better. He felt it is important to maximize the strengths of the semester system.
In terms of the first guideline for the review of semester curricula, Parks realized there are some majors, certifications, and registrations, that cannot be offered in 120 semester hours. The Committee does not want to assume is the case, and wants to see how many programs can be offered in 120 hours.
As the University Senate had discussed at an earlier meeting, the projected number of teaching days be 75 for a semester, with an additional 5 days for finals. Parks said every effort would be made to come up with a strong summer program that would allow non-college groups to attend. He pointed out these documents are still only guidelines, and in many cases, the Committee wanted to make positive statements about what it wanted to do. Many issues are still open to debate. The Committee is proposing a flexible summer program, in which core courses as well as "special needs" be offered.
The Committee felt it very important the principle curriculum transition decisions be made at the
department and college levels. The Curriculum Committee will act as a "quality checkpoint" to endure the
appropriate standards are being met. The recommendations of the Curriculum Committee would be passed on
to the Executive Committee, and final action would be made by the University Transition Committee.
J. Hanson (Steering Committee) was concerned about the 120-hour issue. Parks said for those majors
that require additional credits, a review process will be employed. The Committee wants to have some
"reasonable guidelines", that being graduation in four years and 120 hours.
L. Katainen (For. Lang. & Lit.) asked about the membership of the small Executive Committee. Parks
is the Chairman, and the other members are Dr. Grover, Dr. Curtis, Mr. Large, Dr. Burkhalter, Dr. Schneller,
Dr. Daron, Dr. Pritchett, a representative from the University Academic Advising group, and a yet-to-be-appointed faculty member.
H. Rahe (Anim. & Dairy Sci.) asked about the maximum number of hours in terms of articulation. Parks
said there was a statewide committee that was given two charges by the state Legislature. One was to establish
a statewide general studies curriculum for all institutions in Alabama; this curriculum has been developed by that
committee and it amounts to 41 semester hours. We are driven by this external force.
C. Senate Chair: John Grover
Grover invited Michael Moriarty (VP for Research) to speak about a career ladder proposal for non-tenure track research professors. A draft document entitled "Guidelines for establishing and filling positions in
the research title series" was provided at the meeting (attached).
Moriarty provided rationale for the guidelines. The 21st Century Commission has given
recommendations for expanding our research activities, but at the same time, we face funding constraints as well
as a contracted faculty base. (We) have looked at models from other institutions to seek guidance as to how we
can change our process of non-tenure track research career ladder. These changes should be more effective in
providing a resource for our current faculty so that the two groups can expand our research activities. A small
committee was created with representatives from units that (we) felt would most likely be "heavily engaged" in
this type of career ladder. This included Dean Marion (Coll. Of Agriculture), Lowell Frobish (Agricultural
Experiment Station), Stu Schneller (Coll. Of Sciences and Mathematics), John Owens (Assoc. Dean of
Engineering), Henry Baker (Dir. Ritchey Research), Scott Ritchie (Coll. Of Veterinary Medicine), Frank Rose
(Space Power Institute), and Christine Curtis (Research Office). The Committee met for about a year, and
developed the draft document.
L. Myers (Vet. Physio. & Pharm.) asked what the status will be for current research assistants and
research associates (without terminal degrees). The current qualification for a research assistant is a bachelor's
level degree, and in most cases, the qualification for a research associate is a master's level. The contention is
that these individuals, by and large, are not independent investigators. There are currently tracks in the AP
category for research assistants, and a similar one for research associates. Individuals who are being hired now
are offered that opportunity. Moriarty's recommendation is that those people who are currently employed as
either research assistants or associates with less than a terminal degree (and are non-tenure track faculty) retain
their current titles and to "let attrition take its course". There are only 12 research assistants on campus, so this
is not a major problem.
R. Gandy (Physics) asked about post doctoral fellows; Moriarty said this policy is independent of post
docs, and that post docs would remain as they are in their temporary positions.
K. Fields asked about the current number of people that this policy will apply to, and what the projected
numbers would be for the future. He also asked if these non-tenure track researchers would divert current
University resources. Moriarty said the space these individuals occupy will be taken care of by grants and
contracts in the same way as it is now. There are 50-100 full-time researchers who hold terminal degrees.
G. Howze (Ag. Econ. & Rural Soc.) asked what other institutions the Committee looked at in terms of
the titles that these researchers will be given. Dr. Curtis said that about 20 universities were surveyed, and the
cast majority had titles very similar to these.
Jennie Raymond (Senate Secretary-elect, Periodical Reviews Committee) said that two of the duties of
the Periodical Reviews Committee are to evaluate the serials collection and to approve requests for new journals.
The Committee would like to get information from the faculty regarding what the "pent-up demand" for new
journals is. Claudine Jenda (Committee Chair) would like to hear potential requests at cjenda@lib.auburn.edu;
they can also be sent to Raymond (jraymond@business.auburn.edu). Raymond pointed out that these are not
actual requests, but rather a "wish list". The Committee is also entertaining requests for journal "swaps"; these
requests can also be submitted to the Committee.
Grover said the Faculty Senate Nominating Committee (Chair -- Kent Fields) has brought forth a slate of officers to be nominated for the Senate. Gilmour Reeve and Glenn Howze will be nominated for the position of Faculty Senate Chair; Donald Buxton and David Braly will be nominated for Secretary position. At the April 8, 1997, meeting of the General Faculty, nominations will be taken from the floor; elections will take place immediately following and new terms will start when the results of the elections are read (during that meeting). Candidate statements will be published in the AU Report and on the Web prior to that meeting.
Grover also mentioned at the Senate meeting on April 1, 1997, Rules Committee nominations will be called for; these elections will take place at the May meeting of the Senate. Nominees must be current Senators.
There will be a Board of Trustees meeting on March 20, 1997; the 21st Century Commissions's
recommendations will be brought up and presumably approved.
Grover attended a meeting of the Faculty Chairs from the institutions in Alabama. The General Studies
Curriculum was discussed, as well as the viability of programs (considering the restrictions of ACHE). Smaller
institutions are having more problems than the larger ones. There is also a "growing dialogue" within higher
education about post-tenure review; Auburn may have to address that issue in the future.
The General Studies Curriculum is to be implemented in the Fall of 1998. There are essentially two
curricula revisions going on: one to accommodate the General Studies Curriculum, and the other to
accommodate the semester transition on Fall 2000. In terms of the General Studies Curriculum, Auburn's junior-level writing course will drop out in favor of a two-semester sequence to be given in the freshman year. There
will be the option of an alternative math course in place of the college algebra/pre-calculus that is mandated.
The General Studies Curriculum requires more quarter hour credits than the equivalent semester credits. In turn,
Auburn will be requiring more days in our semester term than is required in our quarter calender.
UNIVERSITY BUSINESS:
A. Campus Planning: Jim Ferguson
Ferguson remarked that campus planning is "alive and well" at Auburn. He introduced and gave credit
to Tom Tillman, an architect in the office of the University Architect, who has been involved in the facilities
development and design. Campus planning has been conducted over the years, but not taken very seriously and
plans have not been adopted. President Muse decided when he got here in 1992 that campus planning is very
important. He had put a lot of emphasis on strategic planning, and one of the top priorities was to develop a
campus plan. One of the major focal points of the report by the 21st Century Commission is the development
of a campus master plan. State legislation has also mandate that a master plan be constructed for all colleges and
universities in Alabama, and be presented to Alabama Commission on Higher Education; that was done as of
January 1, 1997. Ferguson said campus planning in a process, not a product, and he would be happy to present
progress reports to the Senate in the future.
Ferguson went through a series of diagrams that illustrated the various aspects of the current campus
design and possible future patterns of land use.
A plan has been devised and approved for Agriculture and Forestry, and there is a similar plan for the College of Veterinary Medicine. The Wilmore Lab Project for Engineering has been integrated with a 1979 plan that was done by Richard Dober. Another specific plan has been created is the parking plan for the campus. This project has been approved by the Board; at the March Board meeting, an engineering firm will be recommended for the job. The design for the parking plan will probably take six to eight months to complete, and the actual construction will take a year to a year-and-a-half. The entire parking renovation process will take about two to three years to complete. Parking fees will not be increased until these improvements are available.
The campus transit program will start this summer on a contractual basis with Dixie Excursions. This
along with the parking renovations will work together to help solve the parking problem on the campus.
Ferguson thanked President Muse for providing funds for three more parking attendants; there are now six on
campus.
L. Katainen asked how campus planning takes into account access for disabled persons. Ferguson said
all planning is in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
J. Hanson said that the City of Auburn is starting a planning program called "Auburn 2020". He asked
what the University is doing to coordinate campus planning with the plans of the city. Ferguson said in 1992,
the Auburn University & City of Auburn Projects Review Committee was formed. This Committee has met
regularly over the years to discuss projects that involve the interface between the campus and the city. Doug
Watson (City Planner) and Ferguson co-chair that committee. Ferguson also serves as chair of the Auburn
University sub-committee of the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee in the Auburn 2020 program.
B. Faculty Evaluation of Administrators Committee: Gary Swanson, Chair
The general consensus of this committee is that the faculty evaluation process is a "broken process".
One problem is that the response rate is too low; it usually is about 20%. In some departments, a single person
responds. There is also no way to measure the impact of the evaluations, because there is no feedback after the
evaluations are completed. There are complaints that the form is too long, and that there are no provisions for
evaluating sub-administrators.
Swanson proposed three options: (1) continue with the present procedures for the evaluations; (2)
discontinue the faculty evaluation process; and (3) revise the process and make it more effective. The committee
has some ideas that might make the process more effective, such as making it a Senator-driven instrument.
Senators would distribute and collect evaluation forms from the faculty members in their departments. Another
idea is the results be published; this may increase people's interest in doing something about the evaluations.
A third suggestion is the Deans should be involved in revising the forms so that it deals with issues they feel are
important.
R. Mirarchi (Zoo. & Wild.) asked if the Committee has looked at the evaluation systems at other
institutions for direction. He knew of two institutions that evaluate all administrators from the department head
up, and have systems that allow for obtaining a "vote of confidence" about an individuals' effectiveness.
Mirarchi said he has passed a list of such institutions on to Chair Grover. Grover said some of the more
interesting systems call for a three-way evaluation (faculty-up, administrator-down, and lateral evaluations).
Grover did present that information to President Muse, but Muse felt we have our own process in place. He also
pointed out one of the inherent problems of the process is that the Senate Chair-elect becomes the Chair of this
committee immediately upon being elected Chair-elect. The Evaluation Committee Chair has no preparation for
the job, and there is no continuity in the process.
G. Howze proposed an ad hoc committee be formed to make a serious study of the situation and make
recommendations about it.
H. Rotfeld (Market. & Transp.) asked if there is interest by the President and Deans to use the data from
the evaluations. Dean Kunkel (Coll. of Education) said he is not negative about the process, and he personally
takes the evaluations seriously and asks his faculty to do the same. He does talk to his department heads about
what the data reflects on them, but realizes there is a problem when the data comes from two respondents. He
said he suggested to President Muse there be a cut-off response percentage, under which the evaluations will not
be processed. Grover said the ballots last year were delivered directly to the Senators, but the response rate was
the same as usual.
M. Melancon (History) noted the evaluation forms have very specific questions about administrators,
but in many cases, the faculty do not have information about anyone but their department chairs. A. Dunlop
(English) agreed with this point, saying many people do not know all the factors that have resulted in the present
situation in their departments. He did not feel minor modifications will make a difference in the process.
Swanson said one suggestion he received was the evaluations be of the department head and another
administrator that the person can choose. However, that would probably result in a very low response rate for
the higher administrators that most faculty have no contact with.
Dean Evans (School of Pharmacy) said he has always put a great deal of value on the feedback from the
evaluations. He suggested the Committee look at other ways of evaluating administrators that are not so
dependent upon response rates, and said there are many tools that are "well-validated, psychologically-based
instruments" that look at the principles and characteristics of leaders.
K. Fields has seen an "innate cynicism" among many of the faculty, who do not fill out the evaluation
form because they feel no one looks at it. The other problem is convincing the faculty that if there is a better
return rate, the responses will be heard. He moved that the Faculty Evaluations of Administrators Committee
skip this year's evaluations, that the Committee remain in session, study the instrument, and construct a new and
valid instrument to use next year. M. Kraska seconded the motion.
K. Easterday (Curr. & Teach.) said different departments interact with higher administration to different
extents. He asked if the evaluation has to be university-wide, or if it can be broken down to the college level.
Grover said that was possible.
L. Katainen said associate deans should be included in the evaluations. Also, the form should be shorter,
there should be a space at the top of it for respondents to write in, and the forms should be sent out earlier in
the year.
R. Gandy asked if there could be some continuity in the Committee's composition. Grover said the
incoming Chair-elect of the Senate will take the position of the Chair of the Evaluation Committee immediately
upon election to the Senate.
B. Struempler (Senate Secretary) asked if there are people on the Evaluation Committee who are familiar
with doing evaluations like we need. Grover said the Committee would be able to seek outside help if need be.
Swanson pointed out a vote to have the Committee change the process is a vote to work harder at
implementing the process within the departments.
The motion to not have an evaluation of administrators by this committee this year, and that they come back with guidance for next year carried by voice vote.
COMMITTEE REPORTS: None.
OLD BUSINESS:
Consideration of the Administrative and Professional Representation on University Committees: Gary Swanson
Swanson reminded the Senate at its last meeting, there was question about the "or language" in the draft
document that was discussed. He clarified that prior to the separation of A&P and the faculty, the Rules
Committee included A&P members on committees because they served as if they were faculty. In cases where
the "or language" applies, the Rules Committee will still make decisions as to the membership of those
committees.
K. Easterday was bothered that the "or language" might allow for only A&P representation on a
committee, and that faculty should be represented on all those committees that apply.
J. Raymond moved that the "or language" be amended to read " at least (a certain number of) faculty
members". Easterday seconded the motion.
R. Gandy asked who would be deciding what the "certain number" is for the particular committees. K.
Fields said that he, Swanson, and two members of A&P had originally changed the language to include A&P.
Grover charged those four to address that topic and present to the Rules Committee the specific language that
"reflects to spirit of this motion".
The motion to amend the "or language" to read "at least (a certain number of) faculty members" was
carried by voice vote.
NEW BUSINESS: None.
RESOLUTIONS: None.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Struempler
Senate Secretary