University Senate Chair John Grover called the meeting to order at 3:10
p.m. Minutes of the April 9,
1996, University Faculty meeting were amended so as to identify Conner Bailey as the Past
Secretary of the
Faculty Senate rather than the Immediate Past Chair (as written), and are posted to
https://auburn.edu/academic/provost.
University Faculty Chair: John Grover
Grover began by saying the committee structure was in place for the current year. He appreciated the service of all the faculty on these committees. He noted that revisions are still being done for some of the Handbook descriptions for these committees.
Grover stated the 21st Century Commission has a draft report, which has been circulated to the University Senators and is available on the Web pages
(https://auburn.edu/administration/univrel/news/aureport.html). This report is intended
to be on the
agenda for the University Senate meeting on November 12, 1996; anyone with questions or
comments about the
report can speak to the appropriate senator or address comments to John Grover and Herb Rotfeld.
His
understanding was that after modifications by the Senate, it will be sent to the Board of Trustees for
approval.
This report will essentially become the outline of the goals, priorities, and programs that the
individual units of
the University will be accountable for in the future.
There will be a meeting of the University Trustees on November 8, 1996. The Trustees had
agreed to
discuss and make a determination about the quarter/semester system in that meeting.
On October 16, 1996, there would be an open forum for the NCAA study group that was at AU. This deals with the program certification process, and there will be discussion on the governance and commitments to the Rules, academic integrity, the physical integrity, and the commitment to equity issues that are being reviewed by the NCAA.
The American Association of University Professors will also have a meeting on October 17,
1996, at
Pebble Hill.
President's address to the Faculty: William V. Muse
President Muse began by thanking Dr. Grover and everyone else for the opportunity to speak
at the
meeting. His speech was as follows:
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed that, "The great thing in this world is not so
much where
we stand, as in what direction we are moving." As I have delivered my annual "State of the
University" address
to you each fall, I have tried to heed Justice Holmes' advice. In other words, I have tried to give you
my best
assessment of where we were, where we were headed, and what we need to do.
If you have listened to my remarks over the past three years or so, you should recall that I have expressed great concern over the funding of the University and predicted that it was going to get worse. And it did. I take no joy in the accuracy of those forecasts. I take even less satisfaction in the inadequate way we have responded to the challenges we face.
There are some of you who have chastised me for being too negative -- i.e., I should talk only about the good things we do. I can do that. I am an optimistic person at heart. I try to see the silver lining in every cloud. And there are certainly many achievements here at Auburn to salute. But I feel it is my obligation to provide you with an honest and realistic assessment. It is only from an accurate appraisal of our status and a willingness to acknowledge those conditions that we can begin to realistically plan for a University of the strength and stature we desire.
Let me start my address, then, by admitting that the past two years have been a frustrating period in my professional career. You and I have worked hard over the past several years and achieved great things. But, at the same time, we have been told that we are unimportant and treated as though performance -- quality performance -- does not count.
Auburn University, by a number of measures, is doing a great job.
A. We are consistently ranked by Money Magazine and U.S. News and World Reports as one of the best buys in the country for an undergraduate education. These rankings are based upon a consideration of a number of measures of quality compared to the cost of the education.
B. U.S. News and World Reports ranked Auburn as one of the top ten
universities in efficiency in 1995,
based on a criterion of the expenditures per student, defying a charge that Governor James has made
and
continues to make. And those rankings occurred even before the cut in appropriations, which
lowered even
further our expenditures per student.
C. Our retention rate at the freshman level is considerably higher than the national average
for public
universities and our graduation rate ranks us among the top 30 public universities in the nation and
the top six
in the South.
D. Our students continue to express a high degree of satisfaction with the quality of the
education and
the total experience that they get at Auburn. Nearly 97% of our graduates indicate that they would
recommend
Auburn to any one interested in coming here.
E. We have already exceeded the goal of $175 million that we established for "Campaign
Auburn",
indicating that Auburn is willing and able to do its part in securing support from the private sector.
These are merely a few of the many indicators of the fine university Auburn has become. One would think that such achievements would deserve increased support from the State or at least a "pat on the back". But, instead, we have suffered through a 7.5% reduction in funding from the State of Alabama over the past two years while receiving criticism that we are inefficient, ineffective, and unresponsive to the needs of various groups within the State.
The cut in funding hurt us in a very tangible way. But I have equal or greater concern about
the failure
of the leadership of our State to understand and/or appreciate the critical role that education plays
in producing
long-term economic growth and cultural development in the State. Unless this State begins to make
the
investments that are necessary to build and maintain an educational system of quality, both at the
K-12 and
higher education levels, Alabama is not only going to continue to lag behind the rest of the nation
in critical
quality of life measures, but is also going to slip further behind in comparison with other states in
the South.
A comparison with the State of Georgia is both telling and shocking. Over the past two
years,
institutions of higher education in Georgia have received an increase in funding from the State of
6% each year,
or a total of 12%. This is in contrast to our -7.5%. These differences in the rate of funding have
widened a gap
that was already significant.
Let me give you the start numbers. During the academic year that we just completed, the
University of
Georgia (the land-grant institution for that State) received funding from their State of approximately
$7,800 per
student. During the same year, Auburn University (the land-grant university for Alabama) was
allocated a total
of $4,900 per student from the State. The difference, as you can easily and quickly compute,
amounts to nearly
$3,000 per student. If you multiply the difference by the number of students that we enrolled last
year, over
22,000, this comes to approximately $63 million per year. This does not recognize the differences
in tuition we
charge. Auburn's tuition still is at a level below the average for out peer institutions in the South.
Muse stated that one also should take into account the Hope Scholarships that are being
awarded in
Georgia, providing dollars for tuition for high school graduates who have a GPA of 3.0 or above,
virtually
eliminating financial barriers for every bright youngster who wants to attend college. Over 90% of
the incoming
freshmen at the University of Georgia last year were on Hope Scholarships. What the State of
Georgia has done
under the leadership of Governor Zell Miller and key members of the Georgia Legislature, is to make
a
commitment to invest in education at both the K-12 and the collegiate levels, positioning that State
to participate
fully in the economic growth and development that is projected to occur in the Southeast over the
next several
decades.
When you look at such comparisons, there should be little mystery why our faculty salaries
are at 90%
or less of the regional average, our operating budgets are woefully inadequate, and our facilities are
in need of
repair.
The gap is wide and it is getting wider. I have used the State of Georgia for a comparison
because our
campus sits only 40 miles from its border. But similar results could be achieved by making
comparisons with
Florida and Tennessee as well.
Alabama is a marvelous State in many ways and it has abundant natural resources. But the
most
underdeveloped resource in this State is its people. Alabama is full of good, honest, hard-working
people. But
there are already too many adults in our State who will have few viable alternatives in the
21st Century because
of the inadequate education they have received. And we seem to be destined to bring forth another
generation
in which a substantial portion of our citizens will have opportunities that are no better, or perhaps
worse, than
those of their ancestors, burdening our State with ever-increasing social costs.
Too few of our leaders seem to understand or will be willing to acknowledge that the only
viable route
to economic development and a better quality of life for Alabamians is through a significant
investment in
education, as has been so clearly demonstrated by other states in the South and elsewhere in the
nation. This
strategy requires a long-term commitment in order to produce returns on the substantial investment
that is
required, but it works and it is the only viable strategy that our State can pursue if we are going to
be competitive
in the 21st Century in fields other than football.
I want you to understand that I am not critical of football. To the contrary, I recognize that
football and
our other intercollegiate sports bring more recognition and visibility to our institution than all of our
other
activities combined. And when we run our athletic programs correctly, that recognition is
overwhelmingly
positive. In that context, I want to express my appreciation to David Housel, our Athletic Director,
for the
outstanding leadership he is providing. David is a man of courage and integrity. As long as he is
at the helm
of our athletic groups, I am confident that every effort will be made to do things right. In addition,
we are in
the relatively unusual status as an institution of higher education in that our athletic program is
self-supporting
and even contributes to the support of our academic programs.
Intercollegiate athletics has been an important part of the history and tradition of this
institution and it
should continue to play a major role. But, at some point in the future, the political leaders of our
State need to
fully realize that there are things of critical importance that happen on a college campus in addition
to those
activities that occur in an athletic stadium or arena. We have to provide the children and
grandchildren of all
Alabamians with the opportunities to fully develop their intellectual potential and to acquire those
skills that will
allow them to obtain a decent job and to have a good life in the 21st Century.
Well, what do we do? With the significant financial disadvantage under which we are
currently operating
and with a future that hold little immediate promise of improvement, is there any hope?
Well, I admit that I have thought about moving our whole campus to Georgia. The biggest
stumbling
blocks so far has been whether the Crimson Tide will come to Columbus. Obviously, moving to
Georgia is not
a viable option. But there are some things that we can do to improve our situation under the
circumstances we
confront.
Number one is that we have to do a better job in the political arena. Auburn has a lot of
supporters but
we simply have not done a good enough job in organizing and utilizing the influence we ought to
possess.
Before I arrived at Auburn, but after my appointment as President here had been announced,
I got a call
from an old friend of mine who is the president of an institution in another State. He began the
conversation
by asking me, "Muse, are you crazy? Don't you know that everything in Alabama is political except
politics and,
man, that's personal!" Well, I don't think it's quite that bad, but I will admit that there have been
times over the
past five years when I have thought that it was a fully accurate description of our State. But, if it is
true that
politics is the name of the game, we simply have to be a more difficult player.
Experts tell me that there are two things that usually will get the attention of a politician,
particularly one
running for election or re-election --- votes and money --- not necessarily in that order. We need to
do a better
job of mobilizing the voters in each legislative district, utilizing our students, their parents, and the
alumni. I
have charged Buddy Mitchell, Executive Director of Governmental Affairs, with the cooperation of
Betty
DeMent, Vice President for Alumni and Development, with developing a plan that would allow us
to better
utilize our Auburn people to successfully accomplish that objective.
And all our colleges and universities need to develop a plan, perhaps by forming a higher
education
association, that would allow us to achieve some equity with the Alabama Education Association
that is so
effective in representing our public school teachers in the legislature. It has been estimated that
AEA spent
approximately $2 million in the last general election to achieve the objectives they were seeking.
By contrast, all
higher education institutions combined spent a piddling amount. The monies that AEA had available
for that
purpose were provided by their members though contributions that they make. And, by comparison,
AEA's
expenditures were small relative to the dollars spent by organizations such as the Trial Lawyers
Association and
Business Council of Alabama. Higher education cannot compete financially with some of those
organizations,
but we need to be a player in that arena and I am hopeful that, through our work with other
institutions in the
State, we can achieve that objective.
But we must not view this simply as a political problem. Whether you feel that Auburn used
its political
clout effectively or ineffectively over the past two years, the results achieved were the same for all
institutions
of higher education; we each got cut by the same percentage. We have to recognize that Alabama
has some
massive structural impediments to better funding for higher education --- one of the lowest tax rates
in the
nation, a State economy that is likely to grow at a slower rate than other States in the Southeast, a
post-secondary
and a higher education system that is significantly overexpanded, and a K-12 education system that
could still
receive a court mandate requiring better State funding. If such a mandate occurred, where do you
think the
Legislature would get the money? While we must work our political agenda more effectively,
consistent support
of the level that is needed is not likely to be forthcoming until some or all of these problems are
addressed.
A second thing that we need to do is to bring our tuition at Auburn up to the average for
comparable
public institutions in the Southeast. Our students and their parents don't want to pay higher levels
of tuition.
That is understandable, but in my opinion, we are simply underestimating the value of what we
provide. Auburn
offers an education of equal or greater quality than many of our competitors who are charging more.
We need
the additional revenue that can be generated through the increases in tuition. And we can raise
tuition without
substantially reducing access to higher education since Alabama families currently pay a smaller
portion of their
income for college tuition than is true in most States.
Number three --- we have to continue our efforts to improve the efficiency and productivity
of
operations in every way possible. We need to eliminate or reduce our administrative costs and we
need to look
for ways by which we could deliver acceptable levels of quality of instruction in less costly ways
on a per student
basis. The monies that we save can be effectively utilized in increasing salaries for our productive
employees
or supporting critical services that are needed. As an example, I appreciate the decision by our
Board of Trustees
to allow us the privatize our student health services. This will not only allow the University to
achieve significant
savings but will provide our students an improved health care system. I applaud Dr. Bettye
Burkhalter for her
leadership in bringing this
significant and complex endeavor to a successful conclusion and congratulate other
administrators who have also
achieved efficiencies in their operations. But we need creative and sustained efforts like these all
across the
campus.
Over the past two years, Auburn has made major progress in reducing its administrative
overhead even
though we already had one of the lowest ratios of administrative cost per student in the South. From
Fall '94
to Fall '96, we reduced the number of administrators by 8.6%, the number of professional positions
by 12%, and
the number of clerical jobs by 13.5%. At the same time, we reduced the number of faculty positions
by only
2.9%. Another way to state that is that the University reduced its number of full-time employees by
353, with
over 90% of the employee reductions occurring in non-faculty ranks. That reflects the priority we
have placed
on the central mission of the University -- teaching, research, and outreach. But it also reflects the
limited efforts
that have been made by our academic units to seriously consider how their services could be
restructured and
provided at the same or enhanced level of quality but at a lower cost.
One exception to that observation is the School of Nursing. The faculty of the School of
Nursing here
at AU and the faculty of the School of Nursing are AUM have worked together over the past year
to develop
and finalize a plan for a merger of the two units into one School of Nursing. This will permit greater
flexibility
in the utilization of faculty, greater opportunities for students, and lower costs through the
consolidation of the
administrative structure. I applaud the faculties for their willingness to integrate and thank
Chancellor Roy Saigo
and Provost Paul Parks for their support and cooperation.
Number four --- we need to recognize and adapt to the massive changes that are occurring
in how
information is processed and delivered. We are now attempting to educate a generation that has been
presented
a major portion of the information they have received in highly sophisticated, technological ways.
They don't
have the attention span to listen to someone talk for 50 minutes. We need to dramatically change
the way we
teach in order for effective learning to occur. But to bring about that transformation will require a
significant
capital investment in the teaching technology we need and an adventuresome attitude on the part of
the faculty.
Phil Austin, former Chancellor for the University of Alabama System, and I talked on
several occasions
about the commitment made by the State of Connecticut to invest $1 billion over ten years to
upgrade the
technology in the UCONN System. That was an important factor in Phil's decision to go to
Connecticut.
Incidently, I was disappointed to see Chancellor Austin leave; he was an effective leader for the UA
System and
for our State.
In comparison with Connecticut (or virtually any other State, for that matter), Alabama has
almost
ignored the capital improvement need in higher education over the past decade or so. The last time
any
significant funds were made available for capital construction was in 1983. In the meantime, most
of the new
construction that you have seen on this campus was financed by the incurrence of debt --- issuance
of bonds that
must be paid off annually by revenue from student tuition. Currently about 13% of our tuition
revenues go for
debt service. Factor that into the comparison I made earlier with the University of Georgia and you
will see that
we have even fewer dollars than it appears to support our operating costs.
I visited Haley Center 2370 the other day. This is a large classroom that our Facilities
Division recently
modernized, providing more attractive surroundings, including new seating, and installing
sophisticated
instructional technology. We need to do that all across the campus, as well as address a growing list
of
maintenance needs. In fact, we currently identify over $130 million in deferred maintenance projects
that need
to be done. But with virtually no funds being allocated for capital improvements by the State, we
have been able
to squeeze only about $2 million annually out of our operating budget for this purpose. We have to
do better
than that if we are going to make a dent in that problem.
One important step in that direction was a decision by the Board of Trustees to approve a
Building and
Equipment fee for the College of Engineering and, subsequently, to authorize the President to
approve similar
fees up to a maximum of $5 per credit hour when the need for instructional technology can be clearly
documented by a college or school. This will allow us to provide our students with the kind of
educational
environment that is needed to prepare them for the technology-oriented 21st Century.
Number five --- we need to continue our aggressive efforts to secure private support. As I
indicated
earlier, we have already exceeded our goal for Campaign Auburn. But there is still much work that
must be done
in order to adequately provide for the scholarship needs of our students, the financial support for our
faculty,
and the facility improvements desired. Therefore, I am asking that our Development Department
consider
extending Campaign Auburn for an additional year so we can effectively complete this job.
One of my favorite definitions of a college president today is a person who lived in a big
house and begs
for money. I have done a lot of that and am willing to continue to do so. And I hope all our Deans
and others
will join me in that effort.
Number six --- we need to do an even more effective job at strategic planning. When
resources are
limited, there is an even greater need for careful planning in order to ensure that we get the
maximum use out
of every resource. The 21st Century Commission has completed its task and has
submitted its
recommendations. I think they offer a good blueprint for the future. Before submitting these
recommendations to the Trustees, I have asked faculty, students, staff, and administrators to submit
their input and I will look forward to receiving your comments.
In closing, let me say that one if the most heartening things about Auburn to me has been
what
we have been able to accomplish with so little support. You --- our faculty and staff --- over the
years have built an academic institution that is second to none in this State and ranks among the top
universities in the country. Auburn, in my estimation, is truly an academic miracle. It is a credit to
your hard work and dedication. I think that helps produce that Auburn Spirit about which we are so
proud. We must preserve that dedication and spirit while adding a measure of creativity and
ingenuity, in order to effectively compete in the years ahead.
I want you to know that I appreciate your support in all that you do to make this a fine
university. I wish all of you the best as you as you progress through this academic year.
L. Gerber noted that the faculty had been appreciative and supportive of Muse's early
recognition that strictly-merit raises were not always the fairest way to go. At the time when that
principle was begun, there was a notion that equity money would have to be handled in a central
location, because only through a centralized system could real fairness be developed. He had a
problem with the way equity money was later assumed to be de-centralized to colleges that could
afford to give equity money, regardless of where the greatest inequity might have been. Muse said
that "early on", a decision was made that we would try to provide a 3% salary increase
across-the-board. (We) knew there would be some uncertainties about tuition revenues because of
the
anticipated change in the mix between in- and out-of-state enrollment. It turned out that the concern
was very valid; the University was barely able to get 2% from that source. Each of the units in the
University had to provide the additional 1%. There was a strong and unanimous request from the
vice presidents that they be able to address issues of salary equity where they felt it could be strongly
documented. They would be willing to provide the money from their own budgets in order to
address
those issues of inequity. After much discussion, Muse agreed to let that process begin. In each case,
the vice president had the responsibility of reviewing all of the proposals for equity adjustments
within
their respective divisions. In the case of the Academic Division, Provost Parks reviewed all the
proposals from the academic units. In any case where an equity adjustment exceeded 5%, it required
Muse's approval. There were only 81 out of 4302 employees who received equity adjustments.
Muse did not know if it was the right thing to do, but felt that the process worked reasonably well.
He said it should be up to the vice president, acting on the recommendation of the dean or director,
to review those cases carefully and make the decision.
R. Penaskovic wondered how decisions are made about the allocation of funds to the various
schools and colleges. He has noticed that over the past few years, there seems to have been a reversal
of the movement toward decentralization. He felt it would make more sense to have the deans
involved in the distribution of money. Muse said that was an issue that he, Provost Parks, and the
deans have spent a considerable amount of time discussing. Provost Parks advanced a "fairly
significant" proposal that would change the method of allocating funds. We need to look at
measures
that are objective and related to our activities, as well as measures that are consistent with the goals
we have. In the past when there has been money to allocate, the Provost reacted to the proposals of
the colleges, looked at changes in growth rates and other relevant issues, and made decisions based
on all that information.
G. Howze remarked about Muse's comments on how we can do a better job in the political
arena on a local level. He asked what the next step might be of working in concert with the other
institutions in Alabama. Muse felt that was an important issue but did not want to comment on it,
simply because that is something that would be done with the other institutions. He reiterated that,
when looking at AEA and how successful they are, (we) are considerably less influential and less
powerful by comparison. We need to find some way for all the institutions of higher education to
combine their efforts and, in doing so, gain greater political strength. Muse restated the notion that
all politics are basically local. The representatives we have (Pete Turnham and Ted Little) work to
support the University, but other county representatives must also hear from their constituents as to
what we feel is important for AU and higher education.
R. Penaskovic asked if it would be possible or desirable for Auburn to affiliate with AEA.
Muse said that each AEA member contributes about $18 per month to the fund that pays for salary
increases. Muse said he would not rule out that option, but within that sort of organization, Auburn
would still be a minority voice. We have to be more creative and smarter in both organizing our
influence and utilizing it. He concluded by saying that the two things that make a difference are
votes
and money.
NEW BUSINESS: None.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Struempler
Senate Secretary
Auburn University Senate
c/o Barb Struempler, Secretary
207 Duncan Hall
Auburn University, AL 36849-5428