Minutes

AUBURN UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

3 June 1997

Broun Hall Auditorium

ABSENT: K. Alley, T. Boosinger, M. Bryant, H. Burdg, A. Cook, J. Crawford, C. Dupree, J. Ferguson, S. Finn-Bodner, B. Gladden, D. Icenogle, C. Johnson, M. Kraska, R. Kunkel, D. Large, F. Lawing, D. Leonard, J. Morgan, E. Morrison, D. Norris, L. Payton, G. Plasketes, T. Powe, A. Reilly, D. Shannon, B. Smith, T. Smith, A. Tarrer, H. Thomas, H. Tippur, T. Tyson, G. Watkins, W. York, K. Zagrodnik.

ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): C. Alderman (P. Cook), R. Beil (D. Laband), B. Burkhalter (B. Karcher), J. Henton (S. Forsythe), R. Jenkins (W. Foster), E. Moran (R. Norton), C. Sox (J. Hool).

Chair Gary Swanson called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the May 13, 1997, Senate meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A. Provost's office: Paul F. Parks

Carol Daron (Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Studies) will retire from the University effective July 1, 1997. Linda Glaze (For. Lang. & Lit.) will fill the position for one year, until the position is filled. The search for a permanent replacement will begin in Summer or Fall.

At the Board of Trustees meeting on June 2, 1997, the Board approved a 8.9% tuition increase effective Fall quarter 1997 ($70 increase per quarter). On the recommendation of the Student Senate, the Board also approved a student fee for Foy Union and recreational services. The students' proposal was that there be a $10 increase in student fees; $5 of that in FY 1998, the other $5 in the following Fall.

Under the University's Endowment Spending Plan, there is a policy that allows the University to spend between 3-6% of the Endowment's income (over a three-year value average). Over the last several years, the University has been spending roughly 4-4.5% of that income for various programs. The Board has agreed to increase that to 6%, which means there will be more money this year for scholarship programs, the Eminent Scholar Program, and other programs across the University. This is a one-year increase; a similar analysis will be made next year. We must protect the principle of those endowments, but also put enough money into those endowments to protect loss caused by cost-of-living or inflation.

The Board has agreed to raze the Kappa Alpha House and develop a proposal for future use of that property. One possibility is to create a new Admissions Office at that location.

Finally, the Board called a special meeting for July 16, 1997, to review the University's planning process and determine how we are going to respond to the budget crisis the University is facing.

R. Gastaldo (Geology) asked if nine-month appointees (who continue to serve during the summer) could use their summer service as a type of pro bono work on their taxes. He asked if there is a current statute regarding such faculty. Parks said he would check with Lee Armstrong and report back to Gastaldo.

J. Grover (Immediate Past Chair) asked when we would know our budget for Fall 1997. Parks said there will be a special session of the State Legislature in August or September; until then, we will not know anything about Auburn's budget. The possibility of a "windfall" from the State budget is not likely. We are still looking at the possibility of giving a 2% salary increase if the resources are found to do so.

R. Mirarchi (Zoo. & Wild.) asked if there was a possibility of proration. Parks said there Ed Richardson had brought us that issue at the recent Board meeting. Not only do we need to be concerned with the budget for next year, but also with the possibility that there might be a proration call by Governor James later this year. The Board discussed the possibility of from 0.5 to 1.5%. J. Hanson (Steering Committee) asked if Auburn has a fund for that. Parks feels the University can cover the cost if it is within that general range.

J. Hanson also inquired about the "rotating Trustees". Parks said Gov. James went back to the Supreme Court and asked for a reconsideration of their initial action. That request was denied. Mr. Lowder and Mr. Tatum were seated at the Board on June 2.

R Mirarchi asked about the Board meeting scheduled for July. Parks said the Board is troubled in that we need to be able to respond to a "real budget crisis" over the next few years, and that will be the topic of concern at that meeting. We had been moving forward with the Strategic Planning Process (from the 21st Century Commission) regarding the Institutional Goals; we had planned to report back on that in September. The Board felt there should be a discussion prior to that time.

J. Dane (Agr. & Soils) said that, considering the budget crisis, what is the logic in building a baseball stadium at AU-Montgomery. Parks said this topic has been discussed within the Montgomery community and there is an interest in having professional baseball and also better facilities for AUM's baseball team. The Board has agreed to allow the President to discuss the possibility with potential investors. The Board has not approved any expenditure of University or public funds for the stadium. Thus far there have only been preliminary discussions.

B. Senate Chair: Gary Swanson

The Board of Trustees approved the 8.9% tuition increase. However, three members were opposed to the increase, saying that tuition will not solve the long-term financial problems the University faces. Although they were supported the increase for now, they want to have "some plan" for other solutions to the financial problems. In particular, those three were looking for programs that can be cut. They did not entirely draw back from the idea of trying to bring faculty salaries up to regional averages in five to seven years. The statement was made that the way to get the salaries up is by decreasing the number of faculty, not by actually raising the amount of money to cover the present faculty.

The Student Government Association passed some resolutions recently. One resolution is to change final exams from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., and move all other exams forward by 30 minutes as well. Another resolution was pertaining to international graduate students, who at present must pass a spoken English test. The phrasing regarding the testing states that this exam is for those people who have primary teaching responsibilities. The SGA's resolution was to change that wording to include those people who assume any and laboratory teaching responsibilities.

The Rules Committee has had a meeting resolving some of the ad hoc committees that the Senate requested. That information will be passed along at a later date.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. Faculty Grievance Committee: Glenn Howze, Chair

A report of the Grievance Committee was provided at the meeting. Howze discussed the purpose of the Committee, who is on the Committee, what is considered a "grievance", what the procedures are in handling the grievance, and some of the problems of the procedure (see attached).

J. Hanson (Steering Committee) asked about the communication between the hearing committee and the Grievance Committee once the hearing has taken place. Howze said that once the Grievance Committee has decided that there should be a hearing, it is no longer involved in the process. (The chair and chair-elect of the Grievance Committee will be informed about the proceedings though.) The President is required to respond to both parties involved. Only one copy of a case is kept, and all documents are destroyed after five years. R. Mirarchi (Wild. & Zoo.) pointed out that the proceedings may be taped recorded, which is left up to the hearing committee.

B. Outreach Assessment Committee: David Wilson and Wayne Flint

A report of the Outreach Assessment Committee was provided at the meeting. Wilson began by saying that, as land grant universities begin to re-assess their roles in teaching, research, and applying the results of that research, the role of outreach has become a "critical aspect" of those roles. The quality of a professor's teaching has been determined by student evaluations and peer acceptance. The quality of their research has been determined by the prestige of the journal in which the research is published. Little attention has been given to assessment criteria for ascertaining "quality outreach". In the review of faculty for tenure and promotion, the quality and impact of outreach cannot be assessed as easily as are research and teaching. In cases where faculty members are highly involved in outreach, their work may not be fully examined and appreciated.

In December 1995, Wilson appointed this 14-member committee, and charged the committee to develop a model for outreach assessment and evaluation. Wayne Flint served as the chair of the committee; the committee also included three titled professors and two members of the university-wide Tenure and Promotion Committee. Wilson commended the Committee for its thorough job. The "Portfolio Model" for outreach assessment was recommended by the Committee, and is shown in the report.

Flint cited Dr. George Petrie as the most famous Auburn faculty member, including his pioneering outreach activities. At the time, the University did not have an outreach function. Also, there was no assessment of Dr. Petrie's work and he was never rewarded for it. The Committee assigned to address these issues was comprised of J. Wayne Flint, Chair, Achilles A. Armenakis, James O. Bryant, Leonard L Grigsby, Burt Hitchcock, Eleanor Howell, Gareth Morgan-Jones, Terry Ley, Maury Matthews, Warren McCord, Mary Miller, William I. Sauser, Lee Stribling, and Keith J Ward.

Flint began the Committee's work by contacting all universities that are currently assessing outreach, including Iowa State University, University if Wisconsin, Clemson, Michigan State, University of Illinois, Oregon State University, the Oregon State system of higher education, University of Minnesota, North Carolina State, and the Virginia Commonwealth University. Flint also received information from the Kellogg Commission and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

The first conclusion of the Committee was there is presently a fairly firm idea of how to assess research and teaching, but not outreach. Secondly, outreach is different from cooperative extension, "service", and episodic activity such as occasional speeches and lectures. The Committee stated that "outreach" must be sustained over time, have specific objectives, and have specific outcomes. The committee clearly defined outreach (see Item II in the report's preamble).

For those faculty who perform outreach, they will be expected ro carefully and thoroughly document their involvement through a portfolio system. These materials should document the extent and quantity of the work, as well as evidence for the quality of the work performed (e.g. audience response). In some cases, meaningful outreach will depend on new resources, the reallocation of existing resources, or more interdisciplinary activity between units.

The Committee recommends that rewards be given for distinguished accomplishment in outreach. It also recommends the appropriate revisions of the Faculty Handbook to reflect the importance of outreach.

G. Howze said that the College of Agriculture has been involved in assessing outreach for ten years or so, and asked how that effort compares to what the Committee has recommended. Flint said that a large percentage of reports the Committee received were from land grant universities. He admitted that the Committee's report is "not new" to those people in agriculture and cooperative extension. The issue that the Committee was trying to address is that if outreach is going to take place, there should be a way to evaluate and reward it. Flint noted the College of Architecture's Rural Studio, which gained national recognition for its efforts.

L. Myers (Vet. Physio. & Pharm.) asked if there are provisions for national and international outreach efforts. Flint said that many of the institutions that created an outreach assessment program did so because they had lost contact with constituencies, and are trying to regenerate the tax base to support the university. Pragmatically, outreach agents are most valuable in Alabama. Theoretically, outreach in other countries is just as impressive as outreach locally. However, if Auburn is going to have outreach as a co-equal function with teaching and research, we need to educate ourselves about Alabama.

C. Calendar Committee: Chetan Sankar

Revised versions of the University calendar were provided at the meeting. One amendment is that Summer 1997 will begin on June 17. Also in the Summer 1998 calendar, what was printed is not what the Senate approved; what was printed in the Bulletin will be adhered to.

For the tentative 1999-2000 calendar, graduation in Summer will take place on Saturday rather than Monday. Also for Summer 2000, the quarter will be shortened to 36 class days because of the semester transition.

A tentative calendar for 2000-2001 was also discussed; it is not approved. The Fall and Spring semesters will both have 75 class days, and the Summer term (50 days) will consist of two 25-day sessions.

R. Mirarchi asked how the wrong calendar got to be printed. E. Ramey (Civ. Eng.) indicated that the error occurred somewhere within the Administration. Mirarchi also inquired about a Memorial Day holiday. H. Rotfeld (Mark. & Transp.) recalled that the Senate had approved such a holiday, but President Muse did not.

J. Dane asked about the Thanksgiving break being shortened from one week to two days (in the new semester system). Sankar pointed out that was agreed upon with the guidelines that had been previously presented to the Senate. Most schools on the semester system have a two-day holiday; the only way to have a longer holiday would be to start the semester earlier and end later. Dane felt that many students would not come to class during that week anyway. E. Ramey explained that previously in the quarter system, students had wanted to start the term earlier. The second option, which was approved and implemented, was to have a week off for the Thanksgiving holiday. The semester system will allow the term to start earlier, so as to be compatible with football and other activities.

H. Rotfeld was concerned that the Summer 1999 term is only 36 days. He asked how scheduling and credit will be handled. Sankar explained that classes will be expanded for that term. Provost Parks said the Transition Committee will deal with that issue; that Summer term must be shortened or the previous year will have to be affected by the transition. Rotfeld then asked if there was a constraint for ending the Fall Semester by December 16, 2000. Sankar said the basis for that decision was that people would like to finish earlier and have a longer winter break. D. Himelrick (Horticulture) suggested that the Wednesday before Thanksgiving be included in the holiday, and push the Winter break back by a day. Sankar agreed to bring that idea back to the Calendar Committee. Parks mentioned that in the past, that issue was dealt with by having classes stop at noon of the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. Related to this, Dane asked why classes usually start on a Tuesday or Thursday rather than Monday. Sankar said that Monday has traditionally been reserved for student orientations, which is easier for the students than having to attend orientations on the weekend. Debate ensued regarding classes that would be missed by cutting Wednesday (and the week) short.

OLD BUSINESS:

A. Ad Hoc Committee on Non-tenure Track Research Personnel: Jo Heath, Chair

The Committee was comprised of Heath, Jacob Dane, David Teichert-Coddington, Christine Curtis, and Michael Moriarty (Curtis and Moriarty were non-voting members). A draft of the Committee's guidelines was provided at the meeting.

There are currently 26 people that would fit into the positions outlined in the draft (if those positions existed). These positions usually originate when a faculty member proposes a grant and needs help to carry out the research. The position is written into the grant contract; if the grant is approved, the position exists. There are a few exceptions to this situation. These positions have some important features: they are of high quality; "soft money" supports the salary and benefits of the position; the first six years are a probationary period, after which due process sets in; the positions have no tenure or professional leave.

Heath then discussed the modifications as shown in the document.

R. Gastaldo (Geology) asked about the fact that non-tenure track research faculty member would not be able to vote on tenure or promotion. Heath responded that they would vote on promotions and could be available at tenure votes for information.

R. Evans (Dean, Pharmacy) was concerned about the issue of collegiality. Heath said the Committee felt collegiality was important; if a researcher does not get along with others or does not "carry his own weight", that is taken into consideration.

W. Walker (Dean, Engineering) asked if these people would be allowed to teach. Heath said they would be allowed to teach 1-2 courses per year with faculty approval. This usually involves special expertise that the person has.

R. Gandy (Physics) asked if these people would be expected to serve on departmental committees. Heath said that "modest amounts" of service will be expected. Because they are being paid by a grant and not the University, this service would be considered a gift. Their representation is simply needed on certain committees, especially when they have specific expertise.

D. Himelrick asked why add another person to the Promotion and Tenure Committee who represents only 26 people. Heath said that person represents a different category than the other representatives on that committee.

H. Rotfeld said that "collegiality" in the Faculty Handbook is used in the context of its importance in advancement and tenure. He felt that "collegiality" was not being used consistently.

R. Gandy agreed with Himelrick's notion that a university-wide committee should not be "cluttered up" with someone who represents only a handful of people. Heath said that issue will be discussed within the Committee. R. Mirarchi remarked that there are only 26 people who fit into that category now, but there may be more in the future.

J. Grover (Immed. Past Chair) commended the Committee on its progress on the issue of the non-tenure track research professionals. He recognized that these people should expect some responsibilities by being associated with the University. He was concerned with post doctorates, and how they move from that category to assistant research professors. He was also concerned with those people who have primarily an outreach non-tenure function (as are many of the federally funded employees). He felt that additional modifications would create a title for those functions, where people are evaluated according to their contract and work. Grover then brought up the issue of those faculty members who do not hold a terminal degree, and what kind of career ladder they can expect. He felt that implementation of the proposed policy will "second class" the lesser-ranked group. M. Moriarty (VP for Research) said that research assistants hold bachelor's degrees; research associates hold master's degrees. Both categories are non-tenure track faculty. Those individuals who are currently considered non-tenure track faculty with bachelor's or master's degrees will be grandfathered. New appointees for assistant or associate research professorship will be required to have a terminal degree. Moriarty also said that the current non-tenure track associates and assistants are not being treated as second class citizens. In the AP category, there is now a career ladder for research assistants and associates. A comparison of the salaries of the current research assistants and associates (non-tenure track) and the AP category show that there is an advantage to get into a career ladder.

G. Howze said there are about 750 non-tenure track faculty; only a small portion are involved in research. He felt that there should be career ladders for all of the non-tenure track faculty. Also, it may be a mistake to put a representative of the non-tenure track research faculty on the Promotion and Tenure Committee without representation of the other categories of non-tenure track faculty.

J. Grover said the implications are that we will lose one-third of the faculty if the research assistants and associates cannot become faculty.

J. Hanson made a final request that the Senate be given clear definitions and backgrounds of the different positions that have been discussed.

B. Resolutions of Articulation Agreement: Bill Trimble

The resolutions were provided with the agenda for the current meeting. The first is a joint resolution between Auburn, University if Alabama, UA Birmingham, and UA Huntsville.

The second resolution is more formal and legalistic, as well as being in line with resolution that have already been passed by UAB and UA. The second resolution has a conclusion that provides a more positive direction to the members of the State Articulation and General Studies Committee. It also contains changes "Statewide Articulation Committee" to "State Articulation and General Studies Committee". In the fourth "whereas", it has been suggested that "Statewide Articulation Committee" be changed to "Statewide Articulation Legislation Committee".

The resolutions are dealing with the growing concern that the initial objective of the Committee was to streamline the process of course work transfer between two-year and four-year schools. Over the last few years, that process has changed whereby some of curricular autonomy of the four-year institutions is coming under criticism. The resolutions were designed to preserve some of that autonomy.

G. Howze seconded the motion to adopt the resolutions.

R. Gandy asked whether the problem is that a large committee is determining what a certain core course should consist of, or that four-year institutions would have to accept what a two-year institution considers to be an equivalent course. Trimble said the problem is that four-year institutions fear the committee will extend the policy to transfer of curricula related to majors (e.g. prerequisites). The transferability process is basically being driven at the two-year level.

G. Howze asked if it is also true that they are also trying to specify which of our courses should count as core courses. Trimble said that is also true; he cited the example of Technology and Civilization potentially being unacceptable as an alternative to World History.

Provost Parks said there are many issues involved. The general studies curriculum is 41 semester hours and has been approved by the Articulation and General Studies Committee. It requires that a student take two freshman courses in English Composition. In the Humanities, courses must be taken in Literature, Fine Arts, and other areas. There are also requirements for math, science, and history. The real problem is related to the "discipline committees", which approve courses that can be offered in the various areas of general studies. Parks felt that the discipline committees are going far beyond their original charges, and are narrowly specifying the courses that can be approved in the different areas. Finally, 41 semester hours have been defined for the general studies curriculum. However, many students will take up to 60 semester hours. Some people at the two-year institutions want to define what those extra hours should consist of.

The resolutions carried by voice vote, and the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Jennie Raymond, Senate Secretary

RESOLUTIONS: