Minutes

AUBURN UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

8 July 1997

Broun Hall Auditorium

ABSENT: R. Beil, T. Boosinger, M. Bryant, H. Burdg, R. Burgess, A. Cook, J. Crawford, M. El-Shiek, G. Halpin, D. Icenogle, R. Jenkins, C. Johnson, P. Johnson, L. Katainen, R. Kunkel, B. Liddle, J. Morgan, L. Murphy, L. Myers, D. Norris, L. Payton, T. Powe, C. Price, S. Schneller, D. Shannon, B. Smith, F. Smith, A. Tarrer, H. Tippur, J. Weese, R. Wylie.

ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): C. Alderman (P. Cook), R. Evans (D. Beck), R. Gandy (C. Watts), B. Burkhalter (B. Karcher), J. Heath (P. Schmidt), J. Hung (S. James), T. Love (R. Aderholdt), A. Reilly (D. Lustig), W. Walker (J. Owens), M. Williams (W. Brewer), D. Wilson (M. Matthews).

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A. President's office: William V. Muse

President Muse began by introducing Dr. Linda Glaze, the new Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Studies.

A special meeting of the Board of Trustees was scheduled for July 16, 1997. The meeting was called to consider Auburn's budgetary problems as well as proposals for dealing with the problem. (We) will attempt to give the Board an understanding of the nature of the problems AU is facing, which will include an analysis of how the present situation came about and what we have already done to cope with the problem. (We) will try to quantify the extent of the problem by the resources that we need to achieve some important goals. (We) will also bring forth some ideas for producing resources through revenue enhancement, cost reduction, and reallocation of resources. The key concerns will be (1) bring employee salaries to a more competitive level; (2) provide annual funds to address the deferred maintenance problem Auburn has; (3) provide funds to enhance those programs that will be identified as "high priority". Muse related that "the record shows" that Auburn has operated at a significant financial disadvantage compared to other flagship universities in the southeast. Furthermore, the University has operated in a highly efficient manner.

The 21st Century Commission recommendations provide guidelines and framework for making Auburn more competitive and more effective. (Our) recommendation to the Board will be that they allow us to more forward in the implementation of those recommendations in a systematic and reasonable way. Muse felt that we can make major progress, and that we can accomplish some of the goals through increases tuition revenues. He also felt that it will be necessary to begin to phase out programs, particularly those that are "not viable"; this will be needed to acquire the resources needed to fully achieve our objectives. That process will be objective and systematic, and there will be ample opportunity for input from relevant sources throughout the campus.

M. Friedman (Chemistry) asked why the Board is so adamant on cutting programs rather than do whatever is possible to maintain the integrity of the University. He also asked how "viability" will be defined. Muse did not know why the Board has seemingly focused on cutting programs. Muse said that (we) will demonstrate that there are other alternatives that should be exhausted before programs need to be cut. However, Muse felt that it will ultimately be necessary to have some reductions in Auburn's programs. "Viability" is very specifically defined by the Alabama Commission on Higher Education, which relates to the number of graduates per year for a degree program; this is now being enforced throughout the higher education system in Alabama. Friedman suggested that Athletics should be cut, and then perhaps the people of Alabama would find other ways to fund Auburn.

G. Howze (Chair-elect) mentioned that Auburn has been a "good steward" of the money that it has been provided with. He said that the Board should be told that we have done a good job with our money, and that the Board should try to find new sources of revenue. Muse said that the real problem is that there is a shortage of resources. Looking at the money available to Auburn, there still a reasonable argument that the University is trying to do more than it can (considering our goals). Because program reductions are probable, the University needs to decide what program reduction will be least destructive to the mission of the institution. Muse emphasized that program reduction will be a last option to exercise. Howze said that all units of the University should be presented in light of reduction, not just the academic programs. Also, he felt that rather than cutting programs, we should reshape the programs to meet the goals of the 21st Century Commission.

J. Hanson (Steering Committee) said that the reason we are in the current situation is the huge number of higher education institutions in the state. He asked Muse if he sees ACHE as taking a stronger role in decisions at the state-wide level. Also, Hanson asked if the viability of a program as well as its standing within the Alabama will be considered; that is, even if Auburn's program is not "viable", it may be the best in the state and should not be cut. Muse felt that ACHE is attempting to exert greater influence with the state legislature, and have been given increased authority by the legislature. ACHE fully intends to use its authority over cutting programs, and will move toward phasing out programs that do not meet ACHE's standards. Whether the legislature is listening to ACHE will be revealed over the next several years. Programs that fall below the viability standards will be candidates for review, and programs throughout the state will also be considered.

B. Sauser (Adm - College of Business) asked how many programs do not currently meet the ACHE viability standards. Provost Parks said there are a good number of our programs that are not viable in one area or another; there are only three or four programs that did not meet viability standards at all degree levels.

J. Novak (Agr. Econ. & Rural Soc.) commented that the faculty is the productive resource for the University; cutting programs will result in eliminating the source of our productivity.

J. Marion (Al. Ag. Exp. Stat.) complemented Muse on his proactive stance in response to the Board and our current situation. He then pointed out the viability standards weigh heavily toward undergraduate programs; we need to recognize that Auburn is a comprehensive university. Also, there are very visible budget divisions for research, outreach, and extension programs, and those different areas need to be considered when determining the viability of a unit. Muse said that with our resources, we may not be able to be as comprehensive as we would like to be.

R. Mirarchi (Zoo. & Wild.) said that one problem he sees is that some programs are partially viable. He said that, for example, if faculty will be in place to teach undergraduates and those faculty are directing masters students, what does it cost anyone to maintain the doctoral program (even if that program is not "viable"). Provost Parks said the viability standards are used to identify the programs that should be looked at more closely. The process will include an examination of the program's uniqueness, national reputation, and other aspects. The argument can be made that if there is a very small Ph.D. program, shifting some of the faculty to undergraduate needs should be considered.

J. Raymond (Senate Secretary) asked how money will be spent for the Centers for Excellence, deferred maintenance, and the faculty salaries. Muse urged Raymond to attend the Board meeting on July 16, because he did not want to attempt to describe plan without preparation. Also, she asked if there is any wording in (the document) regarding a plan for changing faculty work loads. Muse was not aware of any such wording.

B. Senate Chair: Gary Swanson

The Rules Committee is in its summer activity and will be nominating people to the various committees. The Committee is still accepting requests to serve on committees.

Swanson also announced that ACHE had a meeting scheduled for July 16, 1997, and that a Senate representative should attend. ACHE will be preparing recommendations to give to the governor regarding the funding of higher education.

NEW BUSINESS:

Discussion of Faculty Handbook Revisions

The proposed Handbook revisions were provided with the agenda for the current meeting. Some of the reasons for the proposed changes were: the Program Review Committee has not had a charge in a few years; the Performing Arts Committee no longer has a budget; the responsibility of the Student Health Committee is no longer clear since the Student Health program was out-sourced. There were also changes proposed that gave formal descriptions to the Retention Committee and the Residency Appeals Committee. Additionally, there were some proposed clarifications regarding A & P representation on committees.

K. Easterday (Curr. & Teach.) asked if the student organizations have had input in the discussion about the Student Health Committee. Swanson said those groups had not been approached, and that the issue of the Student Health Committee might be put aside until next year. If there is a role for that committee, it needs to be restructured.

G. Howze seconded the motion to accept the changes pertaining to the Program Review, Performing Arts, Retention, and Residency Appeals Committees.

J. Hanson asked why the Program Review Committee was being dissolved. Herb Rotfeld (Mark. & Trans.) had chaired that committee for two years. The Committee is being dissolved because it had no charges or tasks.

The motion to accept the four changes noted above were approved by voice vote.

The second set of proposed changes dealt with A & P representation on various University Committees (Insurance and Benefits, Intercollegiate Athletics, Radiological Safety, Space Allocation, Traffic and Parking, Traffic Appeals Boards, and University Budget Advisory). The "or" language remains for the Radiological Safety Committee because there may be A & P members who have the special expertise required to serve on that committee.

J. Hanson seconded the motion to accept the changes regarding A & P representation. The motion to make the proposed amendments was carried by voice vote.

OLD BUSINESS:

A. Guidelines for Establishing and Filling Positions in the Research Title Series

A revised draft copy of the guidelines was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. Additional minor revisions were provided at the meeting (see attached). The guidelines are restricted to non-tenure track research titles.

The motion to approve the new guidelines received a multiple second.

G. Howze felt that it would be best to find a comprehensive solution to non-tenure track promotion, not just in the area of research.

J. Raymond asked how the representative from the non-tenure track research faculty would be selected for the University Promotion and Tenure Committee. Christine Curtis said that the intent of (the Committee) was that the Rules Committee nominate that individual, and the person would serve when a case came forward.

D. Himelrick (Horticulture) asked if any college has 10% [non-tenure track research faculty]. Howze and Curtis said that no colleges do. Michael Moriarty (V.P. Research) said that University-wide, those people who have a terminal degree in the research areas comprise 26 of the ~1200 tenured or tenure track faculty.

J. Hanson asked why the phrase "other designated funds" was changed to "funds available in the budget of the Office of the Vice President of Research". He brought forth the situation in which a dean may have extra overhead money and wants to start a new research area with a fully devoted faculty member in that area. This type of money would not be available under the new wording. Swanson relayed that Jo Heath was concerned that money that could be spent for tenure track positions would be diverted to the non-tenure track path. The new wording was an attempt to prevent that from happening. Swanson mentioned that this wording may need to be amended in the future if special circumstances arise.

R. Mirarchi commented that the executive summary be more clearly separated from the rest of the document.

J. Grover (Immediate Past Chair) said that many people do not understand what funds constitute the budget of the Office of the Vice President of Research. He asked if those funds deal with Division Four, Three, or One money. Moriarty said that there is an allocation for operating expenses and salaries that come from Division One for the Vice President for Research office. With the career ladder in place, the University has a better opportunity to have highly a highly qualified person take a non-tenure track position, and be in a position to help the rest of the faculty and upgrade the facilities. Grover asked what will be lost with the new, restrictive wording. Moriarty saw the possibility that other units may wish to use funds they have available to support some of these individuals. Grover pointed out that the Agricultural Experiment Station does not report (budget-wise) directly to the Office of Research. Moriarty then said he would be happy to broaden the statement to include those units that do not report to the Office of Research. Grover felt the new wording in the document would further restrict the current situation, and asked Provost Parks about The Experiment Station's contribution to the total research budget. Parks said the total research budget for the Experiment Station is $25 to $28 million. The total organized research for the University has a budget of approximately $78 million. Parks felt that disallowing the use of Experiment Station funds to hire non-tenure track research faculty would be overly restrictive. Grover said that Division One monies may or may not go through the Office of the V.P. for Research; he asked if we would achieve the breadth we wanted by changing the wording to "the Office of the Provost". Parks felt that the original language was much more useful, because there will be other units in the University that would occasionally have money to use for this purpose.

J. Grover made a motion to strike the amendment regarding additional funds being restricted to the Office of the V.P. for Research. Sadik Tuzun (Plant Path.) seconded the motion.

G. Howze felt that Jo Heath's concern was that we not turn a lot of the current tenure track research positions into non-tenure track positions. For example, there have been some proposals made by people in the Administration to turn some of the Experiment Station research funds into "soft money", rather than line item positions within the departments. Chair Swanson said the concern was that money that could be used for tenure track be taken and given to non-tenure track positions. Howze was opposed to the amendment.

D. Teichert-Coddington (who served on the committee which assessed the proposals put forward by the VP Research) said that the document gives allowances for non-tenure track faculty to teach up to two courses a year (with permission from the faculty). How will those people be paid if they are not allowed to be paid from Division One funds. Moriarty said the bulk of those individuals will be funded by grants and contracts. If they are going to take time out of their research schedules to teach, it would be inappropriate for them to receive payment for teaching from their grants. The source of the teaching funds is not identified. Teichert-Coddington said there are certain circumstances when there is 75% funding through grants, so 25% would be available for teaching courses. Under the (proposed) language, additional funds will not be available and that person will not get paid for teaching courses. Howze said the language pertains to the research component, not the teaching component.

J. Hanson asked to table this discussion until the next meeting because of the language problems and the fact that Jo Heath was not present. Howze seconded the motion to table the discussion. The motion carried by voice vote.

B. Committee on Outreach Assessment

The report of the Committee was presented at the last Senate meeting, at which time the motion had been made to accept the report.

A. Dunlop (English) had made the report available to his colleagues, and related one vehement response he received. The report consists of definitions and a number of examples. The examples, however, are drawn from Agriculture and Engineering; the programs that are run by the colleges and funded by those colleges and not by the Office of Outreach. The report does not tell a great deal about what that office specifically does, nor does it address the goals and objectives of that office.

M. Matthews (Outreach) emphasized that the report was prepared by members of the faculty, from the point of view that the University Outreach Program is an academically decentralized program. It operates within the schools and colleges, but is funded from a variety of sources, including, but not restricted to, the Office of the VP for Outreach. The examples given were simply available at the time the report was prepared.

J. Heilman (Acting Co-Dean, Liberal Arts) said that the a report on the objectives and progress of the Outreach office are available through David Wilson.

J. Hanson clarified that the report being discussed was about the assessment of Outreach activities by individuals, not an assessment of the Office of Outreach activities. Dunlop accepted this clarification.

The report was accepted by voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Jennie Raymond, Senate Secretary