Minutes

AUBURN UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

12 August 1997

Broun Hall Auditorium

ABSENT: R. Bartlett, C. Dupree, M. El-Sheik, N. Haak, J. Hool, J. Hung, R. Kunkel, F. Lawing, T. Love, D. Lustig, J. Melville, , R. Middleton, L. Murphy, T. Powe, S. Schneller, T. Smith, A. Tarrer, H. Thomas, S. Tuzun, T. Tyson, G. Watkins, R. Wylie, W. York.

ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): C. Alderman (P. Cook), R. Beil (R. Saba), H. Burdg (C. LeNoir), S. Forsythe (B. Slaten), J. Hamner (S. Parker), F. Smith (R. Clark).

Chair-elect Glenn Howze called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the July 8, 1997, Senate meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A. President's office: William V. Muse

President Muse began by thanking those faculty members who had attended the last meeting of the Board of Trustees, and he was pleased to see the faculty turnout. He felt that that Board meeting was one of the most important ones since he has been at Auburn. The Board listened vert intently to the presentation that was made, and there was a great deal of concern for the kind of financial problems we are facing.

The Board approved a plan that will allow us to deal realistically with those problems. A critical element in the plan, and clearly our first priority, was one of increasing revenues in order to address some of the goals that we feel are important. Included in that plan is a systematic increase in tuition over the next five years, with the goal of bringing it up to the average for the southeast for doctoral level institutions, along with a substantial increase in the percentage of our students who are paying out-of-state tuition. These measures will generate significant additional revenues, but not sufficient revenues to meet our goals of raising our faculty salaries to the SREB average, for providing adequate funds for deferred maintenance, and for providing some funds to address our highest priorities. The process for reallocating resources that was presented will be, in Muse's opinion, the best method of freeing up the additional funds that will be needed to achieve these goals.

Bases on the feedback Muse received, there has been some misunderstanding of the approach that will be used. The 1% that is to be freed up annually to go into a fund for reallocation will come from all divisions of the University, not just from the academic units. Each division of the University will have an opportunity to compete for the funds that will be available for reallocation. There have already been substantial cost reductions in administrative and support areas, and we will continue to search for areas where further efficiencies can be found.

On the academic side, the process of identifying programs that might be eliminated will begin with those whose five-year average of graduates is less than the 75% of the viability standards established by ACHE. The deans will be notified by August 15, 1997, which programs in their colleges fall into that category, and will be given an opportunity to appeal for the continuation of programs they feel can meet the standards and/or programs they feel should be retained for other reasons. Student enrollment in a program, as measured by the number of graduates annually, is a relevant factor to consider, but it is not the only factor. All other relevant factors should be reviewed as part of the appeals process.

The plan that was presented to the Board in response to their request had to be formulate in approximately one month. Significant credit should be given to Provost Paul Parks and to Executive Vice President Don Large for their extensive efforts to develop a process that will provide us with the most reasonable and most realistic approach to achieving our goals. These proposals were discussed with the President's cabinet and the Deans' council; additional input from the faculty leadership would be very helpful. The commission that is proposed though a resolution (to be discussed later) would appear to be a very appropriate way to provide this input. We are and should always be interested in any discussions that are workable and provide a better method to dealing with problems.

We are preparing for the special session of the legislature that is scheduled to begin August 18, 1997. Muse will attend budget hearings on August 13 that were called by the House Ways and Means Committee, along with some of the faculty leaders at Auburn. At this point, there are a lot of issues that are unclear. The state's revenue estimates appear to be more pessimistic than they were earlier in the year. There is an additional demand for state resources from PEEHIP, and we do not know what Governor James will recommend. Muse was still hopeful that we may receive some increase in our state appropriations, but he anticipated any increase would be very modest (perhaps in the 1% range).

M. Friedman (Chemistry) said that the "numbers game" that is being played does not make sense, especially when ACHE is looking "across the board" for all of Alabama's institutions of higher education. He felt that cutting a certain number of programs would undermine the integrity of the University. President Muse felt it was important that numbers not be the only factor that is considered, but numbers must be considered. The viability standards were approved by the legislature, and ACHE has the authority to enforce those standards. Muse did not feel we are "playing a numbers game", but that we are looking at a relevant variable.

H. Rotfeld (Mark. & Transp.) said that if it proposed that certain programs be cut, it could be assumed that an assessment had been made regarding the cost reduction to be achieved by such cuts. Rotfeld said that many programs are apparently cost-free to offer and maintain, and asked Muse for an example of how cutting a program would result in cost reduction. Muse did not give a specific example, but said that we do need to look at cost savings. He said that if we do not have adequate resources to do all that we are proposing to do, then what do we decide not to do? Rotfeld said that there are some programs with low graduation rates because they are "slaved" onto other programs, and having only a few graduates per year does not take any additional resources. Unless all costs are cut that are related to an area, there will really be no savings by simply cutting that one area. Muse thought that the potential cost savings is a relevant factor that needs to be considered. The arguments that Rotfeld made should be advanced in support of a program if the faculty and administration within a college feel that there would be no cost savings achieved by terminating such a program.

J. Grover (Immediate past Chair) asked if salary adjustments for employees was still an issue of concern for Muse. Muse said that is still a major concern of the University, and (we) have concluded, based upon both the time frame and the special session and the uncertainty about the outcome, that there will be no possibility of general salary adjustment on October 1, 1997. It is (our) hope that we can still consider that possibility effective January 1, 1998, and once the special session is over, we can begin to plan with greater certainty for that.

R. Gastaldo (Geology) had some questions regarding a recent AU Report. Gastaldo said he has been waiting 20 years for Auburn to reach the regional average, and he noticed that in the next five years, we hope to reach the regional average. He said that there is no assurance that faculty salaries will be maintained at regional averages. Muse could not give assurance that we can attain the regional average, let alone maintain it. The entire analysis indicated that it would be virtually impossible for us to bring the salaries up to 100% of the average with what we expect to generate in additional revenue and capture from reallocation. Unless we are willing to undergo a much more substantial restructuring of the University, we cannot achieve 100% of the regional averages. Muse thought that what we built into our projections is to get up to 95% of the regional averages, which would be higher than we have been in the last 15 years. The highest was in (perhaps) 1986, when we were at approximately 94.1% of the regional average.

Gastaldo asked about the story in the AU Report that dealt with the model of certain departments essentially becoming teaching departments. He felt that, according to the current tenure and promotion guidelines, a junior faculty member in such a teaching department might be jeopardizing tenure and promotion because he/she will not be able to meet T & P requirements of scholarly research and publication. Muse said this proposal was an optional plan, one that was directed primarily at departments that have a heavy responsibility toward the core curriculum and where it could be reasonably expected that teaching was the highest priority. There would have to be an agreement in terms of the promotion and tenure process, so that departments and faculty who opted for that approach would be able to meet the requirements based on teaching excellence. Provost Parks said that early on, it was acknowledged that this was a major cultural issue within the University. As part of that model, the University would have to make a clear, unequivocal commitment that faculty members of Auburn who follow and are successful with that model will have the same opportunity for promotion and tenure as other faculty members.

Gastaldo said that for an individual who gets promotion and tenure within a strictly teaching department, they will be "sequestered" for the remainder of their career at Auburn. In order to move to another university, that person would have to be broadly experienced in teaching, research, and extension; with this model, an individual would not meet those requirements at other universities. Muse said that would probably be the case, and the question is whether an individual looks at their career process as preparing to go to another university or whether they see their commitment to Auburn as being of a long term nature. Muse felt that people who make that commitment would plan to spend their career at Auburn, and would be rewarded for their efforts in the classroom. Provost Parks did not agree with Muse's point-of-view, and that there are a few issues that need to be considered. First, faculty members who want to pursue scholarship in teaching and make contributions to scholarship through their teaching can establish a career path in which they are proven an expert in teaching. Included with teaching could be curriculum development, and that can be a form of professional development. Parks felt that there are ways a faculty member can advance as a teacher. Secondly, Parks has attended many national meetings in the last several years, and has found that Auburn is not the only university that is looking at a model for making a greater commitment to undergraduate teaching. He believed that there will be many jobs open to faculty members who want to pursue such a career.

D. Norris (Management) asked why revenues for Alabama are so "level' when we are experiencing the best national economy in two decades. Muse said that Alabama has enjoyed a strong economy over the past three years, as well as an increase in tax revenue. What has occurred as a very deliberate strategy is that the monies in the Educational Trust Fund have been shifted away from higher education to K-12. Our education has typically gotten 1/3 of the revenues from that fund; it is currently receiving 27%. Muse said the thing that bothers him most in this process is that "these are the good times".

J. Dane (Agr. & Soils) thought that the 1% reallocation of resources was to be used for teaching purposes, and will be taken from all four divisions. Muse said that it was not intended that the Cooperative Extension or the Experiment Station be involved. The "divisions" are to include all academic and non-academic divisions of the University.

H. Rotfeld asked if it was true that over the last four to five months, there have been pay raises for administrators of $5,000 to $10,000. Muse said there are pay adjustments made every day, from individuals who change positions to those who have upgraded positions; those follow the normal University practices. J. Dane jokingly asked how a person could be upgraded from the position of full professor, and Muse said the person could be upgraded to distinguished full professor. Muse said there are sometimes financial support to provide a level above full professorship, and he would like to see that happen more often.

R. Penaskovic (Steering Committee) was uncomfortable with the idea of taking 1% annually from all divisions of the University and put those monies into a "pot". He feared that this would set colleges and schools against others. Muse said that if that approach is not taken, what other alternatives do we consider. Do we want to stay at 87% of the regional averages for faculty salaries? Do we want to continually fight the battle for improvements across the campus? There is certainly the potential for this reallocation to result in departments being "pitted against" others. That possibility exists even without the 1% reallocation, because if there is new money coming in, a decision must be made as to which needs are most pressing. The 1% provides a mechanism for freeing up some resources, and units will determine what the highest priorities are for those resources.

R. Mirarchi (Zoo. & Wild.) asked if the Athletic program would be asked to give up 1%. Muse clarified that "divisions" did not include the Experiment Station or the Cooperative Extensive Service because they do not receive tuition revenues. Muse said that we are seriously looking at all auxiliary programs to see what those units can contribute to the University General Fund. All the auxiliaries operate off of the revenues they generate; they do not receive any state appropriations or student tuition dollars. All auxiliaries currently contribute an administrative fee to the University, but perhaps that fee should be higher. Mirarchi said there are some "subtle drains" on funds; for example, vehicles parking on landscaped areas can result in damage and high costs or repair. He felt that the Athletic Department should pay a certain share of the costs to repair such damage, as well as costs involved in constructing parking lots. Muse said this is an issue that he has given great thought and which he has received a lot of mail (especially when the University restricts vehicle access).

L. Gerber (History) felt it would have been constructive to have discussed the 1% reallocation before it was presented to the Board. Also, he was concerned about the method by which those funds will be redistributed. He wanted to know what assurance we have that there will be meaningful factors involved in the process by which it is determined where that money should go. In terms of eliminating programs, he felt that the faculty should have a primary responsibility to the curriculum, and there should be substantial faculty involvement in the review of what programs should be eliminated. Muse agreed with Gerber's comments; he and Provost Parks are committed to a process that is has meaningful faculty input in both the review of programs for the decision of elimination as well as the reallocation of money. Provost Parks said (we) will have in place prior to December 15, 1997, a process involving faculty for the review of programs. (We) will prepare to make a recommendation to the President in the very near future on the process that will be followed for the reallocation of funds; the faculty will have the appropriate involvement in that process as well.

B. Senate Chair: Glenn Howze, Chair-elect

Charles Hendricks (Pathobiology) generously donated a pair of scissors to the Senate.

Howze made a few observations about the July 16, 1997, Board meeting. These comments are attached in their entirety.

M. Melancon said that the History department's survey of schools in the southeast revealed that Auburn's History department faculty have the highest teaching load in the southeast, and in some cases, faculty members have salaries in the 70th percentile of the regional average. He wondered what will happen if we institute this new program of increasing undergraduate teaching and cutting programs. Howze said that as we move from the quarter to semester systems, the faculty need to look closely at what will happen to teaching loads. With the semester move, we will be reviewing every instructional program at Auburn, and each will have to "reapply for legitimacy". Howze felt what would have been better to bring the different factions together with the Curriculum and Transition Committees.

J. Grover asked how the administrators' salaries compared with regional averages. Howze said that the overall budget for the University has increased by approximately 50% over the last six to seven years. Administrative salaries are harder to evaluate, and it is hard to make regional and national comparisons. Howze has looked at how our chief administrators (the general and academic officers), and how their salaries compare with others at the national level for Division One institutions. One year ago, our chief administrators were at, near, or above the national average. Sam Lowder had previously provided data stating that since 1987-88 to 1995-96, the proportion of the budget going to instruction has dropped from 28.8% to 26.1%. Howze felt this is one of the reasons why we need to look at the entire budget and not just the instructional component.

C. Gossett (former Senate Chair) asked if it was possible for the administration to publish in the AU Report what the administration's cost savings are. He also asked it was true that the support staff for the administration has been downsized. Howze said that downsizing is occurring everywhere.

H. Rotfeld has been a member of the Curriculum Committee, and said that in terms of viability standards, under the current transition rules, each program is considered a new proposal. The President and the Board have the power to say that they do not like certain proposals. At the Committee's last meeting, it was told that the Transition Committee is requiring that each department must provide its graduation rates as per the ACHE numbers and systems for calculating them. Rotfeld was bothered by this, feeling that the Curriculum Committee should not be reviewing ACHE numbers as part of proposals for whether or not a program should be approved. He was also bothered that the Curriculum Committee was having forms imposed upon it by the Transition Committee's Executive Committee.(A copy of part of the form is attached to the minutes.) The forms are basically asking for every program that is to be approved as a semester program to state its ACHE numbers.

RESOLUTIONS:

A. Commission to study the proposals presented to the Board of Trustees: John Grover

The resolution to create this commission was provided with the agenda of the current meeting. Grover moved that the Senate adopt the resolution; the motion received multiple seconds.

Kent Fields (Past Senate Chair) spoke in support of the resolution. He conceded that giving advice at this point may not have any impact. However, there seems to be an on-going process that has not, in the past, involved the faculty. There may be a number of different approaches that can be considered in concert with or in lieu of reduction to academic programs. It was hoped that there will be reports on the proposals (that were made at the recent Board meeting) at the October meeting, and additional recommendations be presented by the Commission at the November meeting.

The motion for the Senate to adopt this proposal carried by voice vote.

B. Alternative to using Social Security Numbers as the official AU i.d. number: Rex Gandy

This resolution was written by Senator Jim Hanson (Steering Committee), and was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. The concern expressed in this proposal is that it is very easy to obtain personal information that can be used in "identity theft". Gandy moved to adopt the resolution; Chip Neidigh (Naval Science) seconded the motion.

A. Dunlop (English) asked for elaboration on "identity theft". Gandy pointed out that everyone's University identification number is their SSN. We as individuals are legally entitled to not divulge our SSN's when the University requests them as identification numbers. H. Rotfeld said that with your SSN and another form of identification, someone can obtain fraudulent credit cards, loans, passports, and other documents in your name. It is a long and difficult process to clear your own record once this has happened, and it has become a widespread problem.

The motion to adopt the resolution carried by voice vote.

OLD BUSINESS:

A. Guidelines for establishing and filling positions in the Research Title Series: Jo Heath

An addendum was provided for the executive summary created by the Senate ad hoc committee to study career ladder non-tenure track research positions (see attached).

At the last Senate meeting, some faculty members wanted open-ended funding for these research positions. The Committee does not recommend this. One serious problem is that tenure may be endangered if tenure-track faculty have to compete for funds with the non-tenure track research positions. The administration may see these new positions as more flexible, and they bring in more money to the University. In the non-tenure track position, 100% of that position may be dedicated to research, whereas the tenure-track position might dedicate only 25%. Secondly, the Committee was charged with studying these restricted positions only (those that are soft-money funded). The ad hoc committee would like the Senate to form a larger committee to investigate whether funding can be expanded without endangering tenure.

At the last Senate meeting, J. Grover had made a motion to amend the guidelines to delete the "Office of the Vice President for Research" restriction that was proposed in the Executive Summary. The reason for Grover's proposed amendment was that about one-third of the people that would fall under the proposal actually fall under the Agricultural Experiment Station, which reports directly to the Provost rather than the Vice President for Research. Heath said that the funding for these positions is supposed to be either contract and grants or a very small amount of money from the Office of the Vice President for Research. It is not just people who report to the Vice President for Research. Furthermore, the ad hoc committee did not investigate the issue of those people who are in the Experiment Station.

Grover asked Michael Moriarty (VP for Research) if the current language includes the Experiment Station personnel. Moriarty said they were not included as the document is worded. Grover said there are about one-third of the research professors that would fall under this career ladder who are not embraced by it. He argued that there are "all sorts of soft people through the Experiment Station". Heath said that all the "soft money people" are under this contract, whether or not they report to the Office of the Vice President for Research. Moriarty said the wording restricts the new research career ladder faculty to those who are supported on contracts and grants or individuals who are funded through the Office of the Vice President for Research. Individuals who are non-tenure track faculty who would wish to be hired though the Experiment Station funding (state or federal funding) would not be included. Grover asked what proportion of the research faculty would be excluded from this because they are through the Experiment Station. Moriarty said that roughly one-third of our total organized research is associated with the Experiment Station. Grover asked if amending the document in such a way that it should include the Experiment Station people would be more efficacious for getting the coverage and career ladder that the Committee wants. Moriarty agreed with this.

The amendment to change the wording so as to allow funding by "other designated funds" was opposed by voice vote.

The original motion to accept the report (with the addendum provided) and to recommend that the administration adopt it was passed by voice vote.

Provost Parks asked if there will be a follow-up on the suggestion that another committee further look into this issue. Howze said that Chair Swanson will appoint such a committee (or use an appropriate existing committee) for that purpose.

NEW BUSINESS:

Nominations for Senate committees: Glenn Howze

A list of the nominees for Senate Committees for the coming year was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. Howze clarified that there are two types of standing committees involving faculty: (1) University committees, to which the President appoints members (from a list of nominees that the Rules Committee provides), and (2) Senate committees, which are approved by the Senate (from a list of nominees that the Rules Committee makes).

A few changes were made to the list provided. Paula Backscheider's name had been misspelled. Paulette Popovich (Nutr. & Food Sci.) was added to and John Adrian was removed from the Retention Committee. Under the Teaching Effectiveness Committee, the Rules Committee has designated Guy Beckwith as chair.

No nominations were made from the Senate floor. The motion to accept the nominees was made by J. Grover; the motion was seconded by R. Gandy. The motion carried by voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Jennie Raymond, Senate Secretary