Minutes
SPRING MEETING OF THE
AUBURN UNIVERSITY FACULTY
8 April 1997
Broun Hall Auditorium
University Faculty Senate Chair John Grover called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. Minutes of the October 8, 1996, University Faculty meeting were approved as distributed.
Nomination and election of officers:
Chair Grover announced that the nominees for Chair-elect were Glenn Howze and Gilmore Reeves. Donald Buxton and Jean Weese were the nominees for Secretary-elect. No nominations were made from the floor.
President’s address to the Faculty: William V. Muse
President Muse extended his sincere appreciation to Chair Grover for his leadership over the past year. Muse said that he enjoyed the opportunity to work with Grover and wished him the best in his future endeavors.
Muse said that this Spring finds Auburn University in a familiar situation. (We) are in the middle of a Legislative session, in which our chances for any significant increase in funding are meager. Things are not as dismal as they have been for the last few years. We do not expect a cut in our appropriations; neither do we expect to be level funded. The amount of the increase that we may get may not be sufficient to adequately address the important needs that we have, including faculty salaries.
We are making some unusual efforts this year to "tell our story". They include a state-wide advertising campaign, as well as the face-to-face lobbying that occurs in Montgomery. We have joined hands with other universities in Alabama to form a higher education partnership to present our case collectively. We have also sought advice on how to deal with the political environment in Alabama. These efforts will "bear fruit", although it may take some time for the results to be apparent. For example, the advertising campaign, which is just beginning to run throughout the state, should affect public opinion. This should, in turn, affect legislative action. The probably of that occurring during this legislative session is remote, but we have to look at this matter in the long as well as the short run. The advertising should also have a secondary effect, stimulating student interest in the University, and the willingness of donors to contribute.
The constraints with which we have to deal are significant. We have a K-12 education system in Alabama that is under-funded; in too many cases and too many places, it is woefully inadequate to address the educational needs of our state’s young people. Although there are certainly many ways that our elementary and secondary schools systems can achieve greater efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness, by almost any comparison, public schools in this state have fewer dollars per pupil to work with than do their counterparts in other states in the southeast and across the nation. Just as it is in higher education, the number of dollars per student is the key variable in determining the quality of education that can be provided.
Secondly, the "lion’s share" of the responsibility for funding public schools in this state has been assumed by the state legislature rather than by local communities. Recent SREB data indicated that the average number of dollars per student that is contributed at the local level in Alabama is $800 per year, compared to an average of $2400 per year in the other southeastern states. The number if dollars contributed at the state level by comparison is nearly equal to the southeastern average. A major step toward improving our local schools can be achieved by greater local support. That would require an increase in ad valorem taxes at the local level. There has been, and likely will continue to be, strong resistance to increasing taxes in many of the counties where the need for improved educational services is so great.
Thirdly, we have a Governor in this state who recognizes the need for improved funding at the K-12 level, and has so opted to remedy that inequity be transferring money from higher education. Higher education and K-12 education are both funded out of the Alabama Special Educational Trust Fund. Tax revenue that goes into that fund annually has traditionally been split between K-12 and higher education on a 2/3 - 1/3 basis. That was the arrangement prior to the first year of the James administration. In the three years since Governor James’ election, counting the proposed budget for 1997-1998, higher education’s share of the Educational Trust Fund has dropped from 33% to 27%. This change has been much more significant than (you) realize. According to (our) calculations, if the traditional split had been maintained and if the AU system had received its proportionate share, we would have received a total of $86 million. That total includes AUM, the Extension System, the Experiment Stations, and the Auburn campus. Clearly that would have provided ample funds for appropriate salary increases each year, for addressing many of our deferred maintenance problems, and for responding to many other important issues.
Fourth, Governor James is convinced that higher education in this state is over-funded. Unfortunately, there are some statistics that give credence to the Governor’s arguments. The one he most likes to cite is that the number of dollars per capita that Alabama spends on higher education (compared to other states in the south) is very high. While that is true, we can clearly show him that the number of dollars appropriated to Auburn is considerably lower on a per student basis than are stated for comparable universities in neighboring states. He in turn points out that this is true because Alabama has too many institutions of higher education; on that point we agree.
Fifth, the prospects for dealing with Alabama’s overgrown system of higher education are slim. The issue is complicated and fraught with politics from top to bottom. It is not a problem that (Muse) can do anything about, and is not a problem that the legislature wants to do anything about. Every institution has its constituencies, all of who will fight hard to protect it; it is natural that people will fight to save their own rights. We would do the same if Auburn was the target for elimination. The only solution that has any chance of success (in Muse’s opinion) would be one that would give a state agency the full authority to implement and enforce standards of productivity and quality for all the degree programs in both two-year and four-year institutions; this agency would allocate monies to each institution based on its performance against those standards. The Alabama Commission on Higher Education could perform this role if it was given the authority and was permitted to exercise it by the legislature. Perhaps a better decision would be a Board of Regents, with clear authority to govern all institutions of higher education. Such a body would need to have a strong measure of independence from the political process, a condition that neither the Governor nor the legislature is likely to favor.
Where does all this leave us? It leaves us in the same position we have been in for the last few years. It is a position where we need to assume greater responsibility for our own destiny. It is a position where we need to recognize the things that we can change and those that we cannot. We cannot change the political system or environment in Alabama, at least not in the short run. But we can continue to use our resources wisely; we have made much progress in this regard and we need to have the courage and the will to maintain that effort. Among the things we cannot change but we may be able to influence over the long haul is the funding of local schools. If acceptable legislation can be passed that would require a greater contribution at the local level, we should support such a Constitutional amendment. The Starkey Bill that is being debated this year has, according to a number of educational experts, several serious weaknesses. Those weaknesses can be corrected, and if the legislation is passed and put before the general public, we may have something with which to work. Concerning the formation of a Board of Regents, greater control by a state agency such as that may strike one as placing ourselves in a disadvantageous position. Muse argued that that may be the only way that the problems in Alabama can be dealt with. Muse is confident that Auburn can compete effectively and that we would be advantaged by the imposition of any standards of productivity or quality that are used objectively. If we cannot, we deserve to lose the programs and dollars that are at stake.
One example of a quality standard that we desperately need is a "Rising Junior Exam", like those that have been implemented in other states. This is a test over the general education requirements. A student would be expected to take this test at the end of the first two years of a baccalaureate degree program. Whether a student takes these courses at a two- or four-year institution, they need to have covered a common body of knowledge and be able to demonstrate their understanding and proficiency over that material. There should be some threshold score over on a Rising Junior Exam that would be necessary for students to advance to the upper division. This would ensure that all students, whether they took their general education courses at a two-year or a four-year school, would be adequately prepared for the work in the major or professional curriculum they choose. Furthermore, the average score of an institution’s students on the Rising Junior Exam would be used as a measure of the quality of education they were provided. The state of Alabama, under the direction of the Alabama legislature, is moving toward the imposition of a common first two years of course work for students at four-year institutions and those at two-year institutions who are in a college transfer program. It would be a natural extension of that work to include a Rising Junior Exam to ensure that work at different schools is of comparable quality; we should work toward that objective.
There are a number of things that we as an institution should do, and are in the process of doing, in order to cope with the environment we are currently in, as well as the environment in which we expect to be for the foreseeable future. Muse had proposed these measures on other occasions in the past, and he wanted to reinforce those ideas today. Number one, we need to continue to raise our tuition until it is at a level at least equal to that of other doctoral universities in the southeast. We have an excellent educational program to offer, and we should not underprice it. Muse underscored that the dollars per student are the most important variable in our ability to maintain a nationally-recognized program for the quality it provides. These dollars must come from either the state and its appropriations, or from our students in the tuition that they pay. Number two is that we need to aggressively recruit the best students that we can attract, from both in-state and out-of-state. We also need to ensure that students from other states are charges a rate or tuition that covers the full cost of their education, thereby assuring that the taxpayers of the state of Alabama do not underwrite that education. Muse believed that we have the ability to attract outstanding students from around the country, and we need to do a better job of ensuring that they know about Auburn and what it has to offer. Number three is that we need to do the very best job we can in using the scarce resources that we have. We have a Strategic Plan in place that has been approved by the Board of Trustees. We need to implement that plan so that we can maximize the probability of achieving the goals and objectives we have established. Executive Vice President Don Large in his new role as the University’s Chief Planning Officer, will be working with Muse and with each of the Vice Presidents to establish a process for regularly reporting on the results that are being achieved consistent with the plans we have developed. The Vice Presidents will report to the Board of Trustees the progress that is made on an annual basis. Muse is also in the process of developing for the Board a more precise and focussed Strategic Plan, drawing from the recommendations of the 21st Century Commission that were adopted by the Board at their March meeting. One of the key elements of our Strategic Plan will be to provide greater focus to out educational efforts, particularly at the graduate level. Auburn has gained considerable recognition for the strength of its undergraduate programs, but very few of our programs at the graduate level appear anywhere in the national rankings (those done by U.S. News and World Report or the National Research Council). Most of our graduate programs serve local or regional needs. Those needs are strong and clearly identified, and if the constituents whose needs are being addressed feel that the program is of high quality, we need to maintain those programs. But as a graduate research institution, it would seem that we ought to have a few programs that are capable of competing at a national level. Muse did not expect that list to be long, with probably less than ten programs. Clearly the process by which those areas should be selected needs to be carefully conceived and implemented using objective criteria. This will likely mean that graduate programs that do not serve a strong local or regional need and/or that do not have a clear capability of competing nationally should be phased down or phased out. Muse expected that such a process will create some anxieties, but that will be necessary for us to address. The alternative is to remain in a position where substantial amounts of our resources are being invested in activities that are returning very limited results for either the institution or its students. Finally, Muse felt it was extremely important that all of us be sensitive to the need to demonstrate to the taxpayers of Alabama the positive impact that all of our activities produce. The advertising campaign that is underway is one way to tell that story. Each of the faculty, in their various activities, can help to carry that message. This is particularly true for all of our Outreach efforts. We need to think of our research in terms of the benefits that are possible to various constituents, and to make sure that the potential users are aware of the application of that research. Too many people in this state (and other states as well) do not see any significant benefits that they derive from higher education. All of us need to do a better job in helping others to understand the importance of the contributions that we make.
Muse ended by thanking the Faculty for the opportunity to present his report, and welcomed any comments and suggestions.
L. Katainen (For. Lang. & Lit.) asked (on behalf of Tony Madrigal) when the Faculty could expect to hear what formula would apply to the conversion of teaching loads from quarter to semester. Also, she asked it there would there be any possibility of pay raises this year for Faculty. Provost Paul Parks said such formulas had not yet been established, but work would be done to create them in the near future. Muse assured the Faculty that pay increases are the highest priority that we are placing on future revenues that we generate. At this point, the House of Representatives adopted a budget for education that calls for a 1% increase in funding for higher education. Nearly half of that increase will be taken up by a 0.5% increase in the retirement withholdings that we would have to contribute for each Faculty member. That leaves very little in discretionary money to use. Muse had recently been in a higher education rally in Montgomery, and had learned that the Education and Taxation Committee in the (state) Senate passed a budget that added and additional 1% for higher education. That still has to go through the Senate for approval; if that is approved, the budget will go to a conference committee to find the difference between the 1% and 2% increase. Muse speculated that the 2% would be the highest we could expect, and the likely outcome would be closer to 1%.
R. Mirarchi (Zoo. & Wild.) asked for clarification about the number of graduate programs Muse had mentioned. Muse said we ought to have some programs (with 10 proposed as an outside number) that are nationally competitive. We should identify programs that we think are capable of being nationally competitive, and make sure we are investing the money in those as necessary. Muse said we would be offering a number of other graduate programs that need to be maintained, even though they are not nationally competitive or respond to strong local or regional needs.
C. Bailey (Agr. Econ. & Rural Soc.) asked how resources will be shifted to certain graduate programs, and what types of resources will be shifted. Muse said those resources would come from a redistribution of existing resources. To be recognized as a graduate institution, we need to have a few programs that are competitive at the national level. That means that we will probably have to sacrifice other programs that neither respond to a strong local need nor are capable of being competitive at a national level. Bailey asked who would be making that determination, and if the Faculty would be involved. Muse did not think that decision would be made in the next few months. It would first require the establishment of the criteria that will be used to evaluate programs; those criteria need to be objective and all programs will be evaluated.
R. Penaskovic (Program Director for Religious Studies) wondered if 10 programs could be nationally recognized without the University as a whole being nationally recognized. He saw the beginning of a "brain drain" among the better Faculty, being those who are marketable and who are going to other institutions. Muse said this issue is the one that most disturbs him about our current situation. He said the loss in funds from the legislature has translated to a loss of good people who have left the University, and loss of people who have not come to Auburn because of non-competitive salaries or the unavailable positions. The damage from those losses will show up many years later. David Bonner had spoke at the higher education rally that Muse attended, and he had pointed out that it takes many years to build a quality institution, but that quality can be lost in a relatively short period of time because of the lack of funding and attention needed to maintain the institution’s strong points. Muse feared that could be the case with Auburn, even though we have demonstrated our quality at the local, regional, and national levels. Muse said that if we want Auburn to continue to be recognized as an institution that produces an outstanding graduate, then we have to be careful that we be able to maintain the funds in those programs. We cannot do that with all the programs we currently offer.
M. Melancon (History) asked if phasing out certain graduate programs would not seriously affect our undergraduate programs. He felt that this could lead to the future diminution of all of our programs. Muse said that there may be some areas in which we want to establish and maintain some strength, and other areas where we cannot do that. Muse did not anticipate that we will get the monies to try to be competitive in every area in which we are operating.
J. Touchton (Agr. & Soils) said that most of our graduate programs are not an additional cost to the University; most are grant-driven. Muse said he would be pleased if all our graduate programs paid for themselves through grants and other funding sources. That should be a criteria to look at in terms of evaluating a program.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Provost’s Office: Paul F. Parks
Provost Parks joined President Muse in congratulating Chair Grover on the excellent job he has done in his service as Senate Chair. Parks found it a "great pleasure" to be associated with Grover over the past year. Parks pointed out that Grover has been enlisted in the Semester Transition Committee.
Parks said we have made significant progress in renovating and upgrading the computers that are so important to our social science sequence in the core curriculum. We have not yet replaced all of the computers in that computer lab, but we are well along in making those replacements. Also, we were able to begin what Parks hopes is a long-term commitment to upgrade some of our major teaching auditoriums, and ultimately other large teaching classrooms in the University. We started by renovating Haley 2370; the seating was reconfigured to allow more comfort and room, some left-handed seating was provided, sound system was reconfigured, and new instructional technology equipment was installed. Parks was able to have Dr. Steve McFarland give him an introduction to the new multimedia equipment and was amazed at the flexibility and possibilities of the system. He said that when technology like that is combined with an instructor of Dr. McFarland's abilities that the result is a true education experience for the students. He was so impressed with what was done to that classroom and the potential of such a classroom, we are going to renovate Haley 3195 this year and Comer Hall auditorium as well. Parks hoped we would be able to make such renovations on one or two classrooms each year for the next several years.
There will be a Faculty Web Day on May 20, 1997, in Room 213 of the Union Building. The primary purpose of this will be to give examples of how some of our Faculty is using the World Wide Web in the classroom.
The University Transition Committee will have an open forum on April 14, 1997, in Broun Hall Auditorium. The various documents that the Transition Committee has created will be discussed, including the guiding principles, the guidelines for the semester degree programs, and the calendar we will try to follow in the transition. There is now a Transition website that will provide the most current documents; this website can be accessed through the University homepage > academic programs > Provost’s office.
L. Katainen asked if there would be another open forum if the scheduled meeting proved to be too short. Parks said the Transition Committee would also accept written comments before and after the forum. He also felt that the Faculty’s concerns are not addressed at the forum, another would be scheduled. Christine Curtis said that another forum was planned for the Fall.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Faculty Welfare Committee: Arlie Powell, Chair
The Annual Report of the Committee was provided at the meeting, which addressed many of the issues that were brought up through the Committee’s questionnaire (see attached).
B. Burkhart (Psychology) said he could think of several situations in which a "Leave Pool" would be advantageous, such as when a new faculty becomes sick (without becoming disabled). In such a case, the person’s sick leave would be quickly used up. Powell said that the weakest link of the report is regarding the first year of employment. When a person gets sick after that first year, the sick leave is first used up, then the person has six months are 60% of their salary (provided by the University); after that six months, insurance carries the person at 60% salary for up to $36,000 per year until the age of 65. But there are no provisions for people who have been with the University for less than one year. Burkhart then mentioned the situation when a faculty member has a very ill family member; coverage will not be adequate in such a scenario. He said he would be eager to donate his excess sick leave to someone who really needs it. Powell said that was an excellent point, and that the Committee would look into other options.
P. Sullinger (Faculty Welfare Committee) related that Ron Carey said the major problem with the Leave Bank idea is that everyone said they would be glad to donate sick leave, but changed their minds when they found out that unused sick leave could be used toward retirement. Powell said that the questionnaire revealed that very issue.
G. Howze (Agr. Econ. & Rural Soc.) said that Auburn’s benefits are 4-5% lower than other institutions in Alabama, as well as below regional and national benefits. He felt the Committee should continue to pursue the benefits issue. Powell agreed that Auburn is well below average in some areas of employee benefits.
FAREWELL ADDRESS BY OUTGOING CHAIR: John Grover
Chair Grover’s address was as follows:
At this juncture with the end of my tern as chair of the University Faculty it is traditional to address a few remarks to the general faculty. I am mindful that this presents an opportunity to philosophize and try to leave some sage understanding and encouragement. I will get to that in a minute.
Kent Fields, as he faced this same challenge speaking to the faculty last year, observed that on many issues is seems as if the University is like a snail climbing a flagpole, moving up one foot during the day and slipping back two feet during the night. This may still may be true in many areas, but I think we have made some progress in several ways. Certainly I feel the faculty officers have had a good relationship and communication with members of the central administration. The chair and chair-elect have met weekly with the Provost and monthly with the President. Our discussions have been informal, wide-ranging, and informative. We have been able to bring faculty concerns to the administrators and they have been able to explain the basis for their actions when asked. We have tried to be a voice from you to them and vice versa.
The same can be said about our relationship with our Board of Trustees. We have been received and listened to in a very gracious manner. I sense the Board members have become more comfortable with each other and with the administration than for a long lime in our history. There is still room for disagreement among members of the Board and among members of the administration and faculty as there should be, but I think the Board members now truly want what is best for Auburn and we owe them a debt of gratitude for their demanding service.
Believe it or not, I think we have made some progress on the parking situation. A shuttle system will be started this summer and construction of new and improved student parking is progressing. Enforcement of parking regulations has increased and should continue to be pursued vigorously, now especially restricting the movement of unauthorized cars in the central campus during normal work hours. I do not look forward to the increased parking fees that will eventually accompany this development, but will begrudge the charges less if the parking system works as it should.
Other progress has been made in matters such as the dental insurance policy now available to university employees. Though admittedly only a modest help, it is a start in the right direction. The flex medical and child care programs also help to take some of the bite out of costs covered in this program. Employees should learn about and take advantage of these programs when they can. I hope that further improvements in our employment benefits program can be made. I personally favor the "cafeteria plan" approach that would include options for greater University participation in our 403(b) matching amounts or tuition waivers for our dependents. To enforce what Glenn Howze said, the University of Alabama matches their employees’ contributions in the 403(b) program up to the $9,500 limit (Auburn only matches to about $720).
The revised Faculty Handbook has been a big help in clarifying and facilitating the operations of faculty affairs. I have wanted my period in faculty governance to be characterized by faculty participation in University matters, and the Handbook now clearly defines faculty representation and participation on many of the committees. There are still some matters that need to be further clarified and the Faculty Handbook Revisions Committee will bring forward a number of adjustments that are needed in the Handbook in the May 13 University Senate meeting. Groups are now actively in place to examine the University policy on consulting and outside employment, the tenure appeals process, and giving longer terms for members of the University Budget Advisory Committee. The faculty are empowered with more knowledge of University operations and have more forums for their inputs than ever before. In this regard, we are higher up the flagpole than just a few years ago. I hope we continue to climb more than we slip backwards.
I, for one, had a bad taste in my mouth about the whole priority and ranking process that we went though a couple years ago. I believe and hope that that experience is behind us now, and will not be repeated in that form again soon. Nevertheless, Auburn needs to be a dynamic and changing place. We as faculty need to accept this and be willing to do our part. Our vision needs to expand to the ever-shrinking global society, and the need for solid moral and social values consistent with what is right and true. The transition to the semester is giving us the unique opportunity to evaluate what and how we teach and make some needed adjustments. The challenge of getting the transition to work smoothly and within our resources is obvious. The collective faculty need to be involved, especially at the departmental level, to help this process to well.
This leads to two other topics on which I wish to comment -- the matter of faculty apathy and the question of resources. It has become painfully apparent that most faculty are not very involved in faculty and campus affairs. The volunteer rate for committee service is low. Last spring’s response to the administrator evaluation was also low. The same few people keep cropping up in key committees and faculty offices. The historical low attendance at meetings such this and low voter response to faculty elections such as are now being counted further manifest the problem. (I’ve been told we had 140 votes in this election today; that represents less than 10% of the eligible faculty.) Obviously, cynicism about the system and commitments to other professional and worthy caused certainly must distract many from expressing themselves in these ways. Nevertheless, for faculty participation to be meaningful, the participation must include many, if not most at one stage or another. The faculty need the validating power of broadly-based participation if their influence is to be meaningful and representative. I realize I’m preaching to the choir here, and I appreciate your attendance and participation in this process today. We need to get others, also, involved more actively.
On the matter of University resources, the news is less optimistic and it seems likely we are losing faster than we are gaining. The conundrum Alabama is facing the general recognition that educational funding at all levels is less than it should be, but there also is an unwillingness to increase taxes to deal with the problem. The political will to set the state’s educational funding house in order does not appear to be forthcoming. Make no mistake, I do not believe that funding alone shows good education. We also have not done a very good job of addressing the underlying sociological problems that hold back our educational performance. We need to attend to these as much as the financial shortcomings.
Auburn has clearly identified out financial problems such as expressed in the 21st Century Commission recommendations. Delayed maintenance, low salaries, and the raising costs of operations, library acquisitions, and laboratory equipment are all amply manifest. Measures to reduce the number of costly senior employees, manage student enrollment, curtail the administrative bloat, increase tuition and impose special fees for laboratory and professional programs, and the success of various capital campaigns are all helping. At this time of legislative budgeting, it would not be out of place for each of us to write if we have not already done so, to our state and national governmental administrators and legislators to let them know of our limitations and concerns related to the funding adequacy. The appropriate manes and addresses are published regularly, or let me know and I’ll be happy to provide specifics as you may want. The deans, Board members, alumni, and students have rallied to help in this effort as mandated by the University Senate, and we’ve been involved in cooperative dialogue to coordinate this. But we as faculty need to assert ourselves as well. None of us got into education thinking it would make us wealthy, and certainly we will continue to make sacrifices and expend extra effort in out commitment for education. We are only seeking the financial support needed for us to continue this effort in a reasonable way.
The new Auburn University publicity campaign in painful in that it diverts badly needed resources from other educational purposes, but somehow the University needs to stand up and be recognized for what it contributes to the state. At my first job at University of Libya in North Africa, I was told the reason they hired a young lecturer from America was that they wanted to gain some of the benefits of our land grant university system. Though I heard the words, I did not know what they really meant by this concept and perception. Since then I have come to appreciate what they sought in terms of practical education, applied research and outreach joined in a single institution, and I have attempted in a variety of other international circumstances to alert others to what could and has been accomplished by such institutions. Auburn clearly needs to assert its value and special functions as embedded in the land grant tradition and as a flagship research university. Auburn’s niche in Alabama’s educational system for the future should continue to be built on programs of high quality, high standards coupled with relevance and responsive service. These are enduring qualities that have made Auburn a good place to work and should serve us well in the future.
I want to thank all who have helped and tolerated me in these past months. I am indebted to the mentoring of our past faculty chairs and secretaries. I would like to offer my best wishes and pledge of support to those who will now take up the task of representing the faculty. I hope they will enjoy the experiences I have, and I think you can find me at the end of a fishing pole a little more in the coming months. As Yogi Berra reminded us with his miraculous management of the New York Mets, "It ain’t over until it’s over," and I hope we don’t give up in this cause to do our best for what is good.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Presentation of the A.A.U.P. Academic Freedom Award: Sonny Dawsey
Dawsey presented this year’s Academic Freedom Award to Larry Gerber, Associate Professor of History (see attached).
B. Announcement of Election Results: Gary Swanson
Glenn Howze was elected as Chair-elect, and Jean Weese was elected as Secretary-elect.
No further business was presented, and the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barb Streumpler
Secretary to the University Faculty
Faculty Welfare Committee
Annual Report to Senate
April 8, 1997
The Faculty Welfare Committee has undertaken a number of issues during the past year, most of which were related to the findings of the Committee's employee questionnaire complete in August 1994. Areas of major interest identified in the questionnaire included tuition waiver for employee's spouse and children, dental plan, vision, child care, and family and medical leave. Most of these issues have been resolved (at least to some degree) as follows:
The Faculty Welfare Committee does not feel it should continue to actively pursue establishment of a child care facility at this time. However, the Committee reserves the right to bring this matter back up for review as needs dictate.
This concept is sound, but to implement, several issues need to be addressed. The major issues are costs and practicality. Since a cafeteria plan involves creating an individual account for each participant, it carries a heavy administrative burden. And the administration of the program may have to be outsourced. Such a plan would require new employer dollars because every full-time employee would receive a predetermined amount of benefit dollars.
Practicality is also a major concern due to the fact that a great percentage of employees have the University's health coverage and that would not change because of an implementation of a cafeteria plan. Therefore, most people have already obligated a major portion of their benefit dollars.
It is the general feeling of the Faculty Welfare Committee that a cafeteria plan is worthy of consideration and will be examined. However, some time will be required for surveying other university systems and developing a recommendation. Further, the Insurance and Benefits Committee may also become involved in evaluating this issue.
Submitted by
Arlie A. Powell, Chair
Academic Freedom Award Presentation
April 8, 1997
Sonny Dawsey, Presenter
Larry G. Gerber, Associate Professor of History, Recipient
It gives me great satisfaction to come forward to recognize the significant contributions of one of our colleagues. I want to thank all of you who submitted nominations for the Academic Freedom Award. The names of many deserving individuals were put forward, and the nominations of this year's non-winners will be carried over for consideration next year.
The Academic Freedom Award is presented to an individual who has demonstrated high ethical standards and professionalism in his or her field and has made important contributions to advocating, protecting, and extending academic freedom at this university and/or throughout the region. This year's recipient was selected by the Executive Committee of the Local Chapter of the AAUP after careful consideration of nominations submitted this year as well as in previous years. This year's winner will join a very select group of individuals so honored in the past.
It is an honor for me, at this time, to present the 1996-97 Academic Freedom Award to Larry G. Gerber, Associate Professor of History at Auburn University. I will invite Larry to come forward at this time.
Professor Gerber came to Auburn in 1983 after completing three degrees, including the Ph.D. at the University of California at Berkeley, and following brief stays in Arizona and Maryland. At Auburn he has compiled a record of outstanding accomplishments in the three primary mission areas of the university. He has taught a wide range of upper and lower division courses, including the inter-disciplinary Ascent of Man, and for his efforts he was selected by the students in History as the Robert Reid Outstanding History Professor of 1993.
Professor Gerber has published one book and many articles, essays, and reviews. Though generally wide ranging, much of his research interest has focused on the recent history of business and industry, and on the development of political economy in the United States.
Professor Gerber's record of service to this university, to his discipline, and to the academic community in general has been outstanding. He has served on the Twenty-First Century Commission, College of Liberal Arts SACS Self-Study Committee, the University Budget Advisory Committee, and the University Senate Executive Committee. He has represented his department as a senator, and we chose him to be our Chair-elect and Chair of the University Senate in 1993-94. In 1995 the Auburn University Black Caucus presented him with its Faculty Leadership Award. Additionally, he has provided service in many capacities to his department.
Most important, however, have been the contributions on behalf of equity and academic freedom through his involvement with the American Association of University Professors. He has been a member of the Auburn University Chapter Executive Committee, and in 1989-90 he led the Chapter as its President. He was also selected as Chair of the Alabama State Conference of the AAUP from 1993 to 1995 and he currently serves as the organization's secretary-treasurer. At the national level he is the Chair of the Committee on University Governance, and he is a member of the National Council of the Association where he represents area five, encompassing 9 states of the Southeast and 2 territories of the Caribbean. The latter is an elected position.
Through his efforts on campus and at the national level, Professor Gerber has been an untiring advocate for faculty rights and academic freedom. Let me read a few of the comments from his colleagues: "I cannot think of another person on the AU campus who has done more for academic freedom. I believe [this award] is overdue." "Larry Gerber has been an untiring voice of fairness, professionalism, and integrity within the History community, the Auburn University Community, and the academic community across the country." And finally, "He brings a spirit of dedication to the principle of academic freedom. It is a reasoned and kind spirit; strong, but not belligerent or necessarily confrontational. To my way of thinking, it is precisely the spirit we need to champion for the betterment of the Auburn Community.
Therefore, Larry, it is with great admiration and appreciation that, on behalf of the AAUP and your colleagues among the faculty, I present you the 1996-97 Academic Freedom Award, symbolized by this plaque from the Local Chapter. Congratulations and thank you for your efforts on our behalf.