Minutes

AUBURN UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

7 October 1997

Broun Hall Auditorium

ABSENT: T. Boosinger, R. Burgess, J. Crawford, C. Dupree, J. Ferguson, S. Finn-Bodner, B. Gladden, G. Halpin, F. Lawing, T. Love, D. Lustig, A. Magg, T. Martinson, L. Myers, T. Powe, R. Saba, H. Sheppard, A. Tarrer, S. Tuzun, T. Tyson, T. Walker.

ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): W. Abner (B. Turner), C. Alderman (P. Cook), K. Alley (G. Weaver), B. Burkhalter (B. Karcher), J. Cherry (R. Locy), J. Dane (W. Wood), M. Melancon (L. Gerber).

Chair Gary Swanson called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the August 12, 1997, Senate meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A. President's office: Provost Paul Parks

Provost Parks updated the Senate on the coordination of the Information Technology Program; an article regarding this topic had already been published in the AU Report. After looking at the budget, the prospects for state funding, and reallocation of existing programs, it was decided that there were not enough funds to hire a Chief Information Officer for Auburn University; that search was terminated. Jim Stone has been the interim Chief Information Officer for the last few years, and will return to his position of Director of Telecommunication and Educational Television. The Administration will ask Stone to assume a responsibility within the Division of University Computing; he will oversee the three divisions of technology at the University.

To ensure that there is institution-wide planning and coordination of the Information Technology Program, Parks will work with President Muse to appoint an Information Technology University Advisory Committee. This Committee will be composed of Faculty and Administrators, and will have the task of advising which direction AU should go with information technology in our instructional programs and administrative support. The first assignment for the Committee is to develop institutional goals for information technology. Parks hoped that Committee would be appointed before the end of Fall quarter.

Parks announced that the Board of Trustees would be meeting on October 9, 1997, and invited all to attend. He also announced a second open forum to discuss the semester transition, scheduled for October 13. At the open forum, a progress report will be given on the current status of the transition, as well as a report on the core curriculum. Some changes have been made to the core, primarily in Social Sciences.

The Deans have been working on developing a Faculty Workload Policy, in an attempt to bring some standard measures to workloads. That document was brought to and discussed by the Deans' Council several months ago, after which it was given to President Muse for his comments. After Muse's revisions are made, Parks will bring the document to the Senate. The leadership of the Senate and the Rules Committee will then determine how to review the document. Parks wanted to have a full review of the document within the Senate, and incorporate the resulting recommendations into the document before it returns to the President for final review.

G. Howze (Chair-elect) referred to an article in the AU Report regarding the Information Technology position. He asked if the people who would be taking on additional responsibilities wold be receiving additional salary. Parks said they would not.

C. Bailey (Steering Committee) asked where the Faculty Workload Policy initiated, and Parks informed him that the Deans initiated it. They had wanted to give a comparative weight to all the responsibilities of a faculty member. Also, President has wanted a means of defining when a faculty member is carrying an "excessive load", and how they might receive compensation for the extra load. B. Burkhart (ex-Senate Chair) wondered how this document would be perceived by the Faculty, and felt that there was potential for people to feel there were "nefarious motives" to making the Policy. Parks said that was the very reason for wanting the Policy to be presented to the Senate. Parks stated emphatically that the Deans had no ulterior motives in making the Policy, and that they were attempting to help the Faculty by defining workloads.

B. Senate Chair: Gary Swanson

Chair Swanson referred back to the June and July meetings of the Board of Trustees, specifically the issues of program cuts and other ways for the University to save money. As a result of those meetings, a commission of past Senate Chairs was established to review some of the "fallout" stemming from the Trustees' meetings.

One issue is the 1% reallocation of resources; there will be a set of guidelines to govern that reallocation. The issue of major concern were the viability standards, and the possibility of the elimination of some programs. There will eventually be a Senate standing committee to review the input from the various colleges regarding programs that fail the 75% test on viability. People who are interested in serving on that Committee or nominating someone to it should talk to Chair Swanson or Secretary Raymond.

Swanson talked about the upcoming meeting of the Trustees. The proposed budget will have a 2% across-the-board increase in salaries, starting January 1, 1988. Also proposed will be a one-time, $500 "bonus" in the December paychecks for everyone.

A new committee was established by the resolution at the last Senate meeting. This committee will be looking at the use of Social Security Numbers for identification. Volunteers are welcome for that committee.

The AU Report had an article that stated the most recent revisions to the Faculty Handbook would only be available on the Web. There has been some concern about the unavailability of "hard copies" of the revisions, in that there are people who do not have easy access to the Internet. Swanson conducted an informal vote among the Senators, and found that about two-thirds preferred that an updated hard copy be provided every three years, about one-third preferred no more hard copies, and only a few wanted a new hard copy every year.

Swanson then introduced the new members of the Senate, including the new University Librarian, Stella Bentley. He made a proviso that the Presidential appointees had not yet been made. There are also some University committees that are not complete because the letters appointing people to those committees had not yet been distributed. The Senate committees have been established already.

Swanson concluded by urging the Senate to remind faculty members to attend the General Faculty meeting on October 14, 1997.

Y. Kozlowski (Past Senate Chair) asked about the Budget Advisory Committee's recommendation regarding promotion and raises . Parks said that the current rate is an increase of $2,000 with the promotion from assistant professor to associate professor, and $3,000 from associate to full professor. Over the next four years, (we) will try to incrementally increase those amounts to $4,000 and $6,000, respectively. This year there will be increases of $500 and $750, and that will continue until the new amounts are attained.

R. Gandy (Physics) recalled that approximately nine months ago, the Senate passed a resolution calling for the formation of a committee to study the present situation by which the President overrules decisions of the Promotion and Tenure Committee. John Grover (Immediate Past Senate Chair) said that the committee has been formed but it has not met yet.

OLD BUSINESS:

Report and Resolution from the Commission to Review the Proposals Presented to the Trustees: Kent Fields, Commission Chair

The resolution was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. Fields began by acknowledging the members of the Commission: Gary Swanson, John Grover, Yvonne Kozlowski, Larry Gerber, Barry Burkhart, Gary Mullen, Gene Clothiaux, Miller Solomon, Claude Gossett, and Dennis Rygiel.

There were two charges that the Commission had to address: (1) evaluate the proposals already presented to the Board of Trustees on July 16, 1997, and to report at the current meeting; and (2) develop, in consultation with the Administration, an appropriate process for dealing with the current fiscal situation. The report for the first charge is in the form the resolution presented. The Commission is still working on the second charge; the report for this charge is to be presented at the November 11, 1997, Senate meeting. In regard to the second charge, the Commission has had one meeting to discuss some potential efficiencies and cost savings that might be made. (Fields stated that the original charge had specified that any suggestions be formulated with the participation of the Administration; Chair Swanson was in the process of scheduling a meeting with Provost Parks and President Muse.)

Many issues had been presented to the Board of Trustees at the June 16, 1997, meeting. Two of those issues met the charges given to the Commission. Fields shared some quotes related to the deliberations at that meeting. The Auburn University Bulletin (1996-1997, page 8) state that,

"By striving for excellence in all its activities, Auburn represents a major source in the state's economic, social and cultural development. In recognition of obligations to society, instruction, research and extension programs are also sensitive to national and global concerns. The primary resource for realizing these goals, as at all great universities, is the faculty...."

He also shared a quote from the AU Faculty Handbook, which states that,

"Faculty members at Auburn University are involved to a significant degree in the formulation and review of institutional policies which affect the academic and professional welfare of the University and the Faculty. This involvement is achieved primarily through the organizations of the University Faculty and the University Senate, which are described in the University Senate Constitution. University policy concerning the academic functioning of the University is adopted with the participation of the elected representatives of the University Faculty."

In the Preamble to the University Senate Constitution as stated in the Handbook,

"The University Senate is established with the belief that then members of the University community who are involved in the day-to-day life of the University should participate in the formulation of policies affecting the faculty and the academic life of the institution. The Senate provides a vehicle through which such a collective intelligence can be directed toward promoting the well-being of the University." Article 1 of the Senate Constitution states that, "The University is Advisory to the President. In that capacity it is the body having primary concern for the general academic policies of the University, including those involving curricula, programs, standards, faculty appointment, evaluation and development, student academic affairs and libraries."

There were two of the major issues requiring Faculty participation that were presented to the Trustees at their June meeting. The first is regarding the procedures for the annual reallocation of resources to support high priority institutional goals and programs (the "one-percent solution"). The second is a proposed procedure for phasing out "low viability" programs. This proposal ties program closure to ACHE Viability Standards.

The Commission believes that Faculty did not participate in the formulation of either of the above mentioned policies, and these policies have a significant impact on the academic life of the University and the Faculty. Such actions violate the Faculty Handbook and the principle of shared governance in this institution. Fields added that subsequent to June 16, 1997, after receiving feedback from this Commission, the Administration has made changes to the procedures to allow for Faculty participation in the implementation of the policies.

The Commission had some difficulty with the proposed policy for the discontinuation of programs that are not viable. "Low viability programs" are defined by the ACHE Viability Standards, which were made into law in the 1996 legislature, along with the provisions for the Articulation Agreement. These standards rely on a single measure of viability, do not consider program quality, do not consider the quality or mission of the institution, whether it is a two- or four-year institution, and do not address cost savings; there are other "fatal flaws" with the entire procedure. Fields said that, "Even ignoring the weaknesses of the standards, and that they make no sense in terms of rational systems management, and that the legislation should be repealed, Auburn's rush to implementing them is puzzling." Viability is determined on the basis of a five-year average of number of graduates from each program, based on the Integrated Post-Secondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which is not yet in existence. ACHE is in the process of calling for information to be put into IPEDS. Fields felt that Auburn has begun to formulate procedures before need be. With the up-coming semester transition, we have opportunities to identify programs that are not viable by a rational sense rather than an "ACHE sense". Those non-viable programs should be shut down, but the decisions to do so should not be based solely on the number of graduates a program produces.

The Commission also had some difficulties with the proposed policy for resource allocation, in that Faculty did not participate in the formulation of that policy. An excerpt from the "Procedures for the annual reallocation of resources to support high priority institutional goals and programs" (Section 2), which states that, "All operating units that are supported by state appropriated funds will be required to identify funds for annual reallocation." Also,

"In FY '98 and each year thereafter in the five-year planning cycle, all operating units of the University will identify one to two percent of their current unrestricted budgets to be placed into a Fund for Reallocation the following year. Identification of the sources of these funds for reallocation will be the responsibility of the operating units."

This process is "well along" for the current year. There have been some changes that now allow for Faculty involvement. There is another new provision, which states that, "Annual increases in tuition and state appropriations will also be placed in the Fund for Reallocation." The Commission found it troubling that 1-2% of the current budget as well as any increases in tuition or state appropriations go into the Fund for Reallocation; everything will in effect be level-funded.

Fields further discussed the proposed policy for resource reallocation (see attached "Procedure for the Annual Reallocation of Resources in Operating Units"). There are now provisions that allow for each operating unit to establish priorities, and how Faculty shall be involved (items 2c and 3b).

A few years ago, there was an effort to define priorities in programs. This turned out to be a divisive and destructive procedure, and the Administration assured (us) that this process would be a one-year trial run that would be used to help develop a workable procedure in the future. President Muse began, but did not complete the process, of charging the then-existing Program Priorities Committee with attempting this task. The Commission's concern that the priorities established in that aborted effort will "rear their ugly heads" in the process of implementing the new policy. The Commission believes that the first step is to ask the Administration to continue the process that it has already begun, while including Faculty participation in the process; also, the Administration should involve the Faculty in the future establishment of policies.

Fields moved the adoption of the resolution drafted by the Commission.

R. Gandy asked if the "Procedure for the Annual Reallocation of Resources in Operating Units" was a document that is undergoing constant change. Fields pointed out that the version that was handed out at the current meeting was a fixed document.

G. Howze brought forth an item from the Faculty Handbook (Chapter 3, Section 18), which deals with the termination of programs without financial exigency. It reads, "The decision to discontinue formally a program or department shall be based essentially upon educational considerations as determined primarily by the faculty as a whole or an appropriate faculty committee." Fields agreed that the current situation is at odds with this statement. He felt that it is clear that the Faculty did not participate in this process, which is a violation of the Faculty Handbook.

A. Dunlop (English) asked if the central Administration has reviewed the Commission's proposal and formulated a response. Provost Parks said the Administration has seen the resolution, and he has asked that he and President Muse meet with the Commission prior to its presentation to clarify some "misinformation". Also, at the June meeting of the Trustees, (we) were given some direction as to how we should proceed with program review. The central administration's reaction to that was to try to identify a process by which (we) would identify programs that might be terminated. Parks understood, in principle, the argument that Faculty were not involved. However, he and the President followed the guidelines for the institutional goals established with the 21st Century Commission report. There was Faculty input in the Century Commission report, and Parks argued that the Administration operated off of a base that involved Faculty participation. Once (we) decided that (we) were going to use the Viability Standards and that resources would be reallocated, (we) began to identify a process that would involve Faculty in both issues. In the case of the use of Viability Standards, (we) decided to "flag" those programs that fell below 75% of the Viability Standards. A regular review process would then determine if those programs should be phased out. The Deans have until December 15, 1997, to provide recommendations on such programs; Parks had received input from the Deans that there will be some Faculty involvement in that process. A Senate committee (composed of primarily Faculty) will establish a procedure for the review of the potential programs to be phased out. The recommendations of that committee will be presented to Provost Parks and President Muse, and will be a major part of the basis for making a decision on the Viability Standards.

Parks pointed out that he has always involved Faculty in processes, but in this case (we) had very little time; the Administration therefore based its recommendations to the Trustees on a document that did contain Faculty input. From the very beginning, the Administration talked about how Faculty would be involved in the reallocation of resources; there are two major ways for that to happen. First, establish college- and department-level committees (at least 50% Faculty); those committees would establish priorities and would be the basis on which recommendations would be made to the Dean, as well as the Dean's recommendations to the Provost and the Executive Vice President. (Both academic and non-academic programs will be considered.) Once the Provost and Executive Vice President have those recommendations, they will make a series of recommendations to the Budget Advisory Committee; this is the second avenue for Faculty involvement, as this Committee is composed of both Faculty and Administration. The Budget Advisory Committee will then make its recommendations to the President. Parks felt that (we) are already doing many of the things that are proposed in the Commission's resolution, and also that he was not opposed to the resolution. However, he did not think that the resolution would significantly change what has already been proposed.

R. Kunkel (Dean, College of Education) said that recently, the administrative leadership in the College of Education asked each department to elect a two tenured faculty members to serve on a committee for determining program priorities. Also, the original draft that the Deans worked with in preparation for their recommendations to the Trustees was taken to the faculty leadership.

G. Howze said that the Trustees were provided with a list of candidates for termination. Also, Faculty leadership sought input into the presentation given to the Trustees. Howze personally asked President Muse for an opportunity to review the document and discuss it with him; Howze was not given that opportunity. In regard to the Deans, on the Friday before the presentation to the Trustees, the Deans had a meeting with Provost Parks and discussed the document; some were "not very happy" with the document. Finally, the University Budget Committee had been meeting all Spring, but the proposal presented to the Trustees regarding the 1% reallocation was new information.

J. Raymond (Senate Secretary) had some proposed amendments to the resolution. She proposed that the first "Therefore, be it resolved" be amended to allow for the review process to be conducted by a committee composed primarily of duly-elected Faculty members if one already exists within a department or school. The motion was seconded by R. Gandy.

L. Gerber (Past Senate Chair) said that the first "Therefore..." reflected the Commission's concern that the Deans were given the authority to unilaterally decide to appeal programs that were identified for termination. The Commission felt it was inappropriate for the Deans to have this authority, and it is conflict with what is stated in the Faculty Handbook. Gerber was not opposed to Raymond's amendment and allowing some flexibility, but stressed the importance of elected Faculty and that there should be a "preponderance" of Faculty in such review committees.

The motion to accept the amendment changing the wording of the first "Therefore..." to read "...senator or elected alternate(s)..." was carried by voice vote.

J. Raymond proposed an amendment to the second "Therefore..." statement, feeling that is lacked a certain specificity about how the members of that committee could be appointed. A copy of her Proposal to Establish the Committee on Program Viability, Review and Assessment was provided at the current meeting. The new wording would read "... establish a Viability, Review and Assessment Committee as outlined in the attached document, to make final recommendations...." G. Howze wanted to leave the name as the Program Review and Assessment Committee.

J. Grover sensed that there is reluctance in the state to "get into step" with the Viability Standards, and even to define ACHE's authority. He was nervous about establishing committees to a specific viability level of a program that may not continue. He felt that there should be a standing committee that is ready to review programs on a recurring basis, rather than just those programs that are linked to viability standards that may be artificial and finite. Grover then asked how ACHE was responding to possibility of program consolidation. John Pritchett (Dean, Graduate School) said that ACHE had established guidelines for program consolidation; for instance, there must be a sound academic reason for consolidation, as well as a clear demonstration that the program will improve. Provost Parks said that the Deans were given guidelines for making their decisions, but they were not "forbidden" to consolidate programs if there is a good educational reason for doing so.

K. Fields read from the law, "Productivity standards shall be made primarily, but not exclusively, on an annual average number of degrees conferred during a five-year program for senior institutions, and a three-year period for two-year institutions, as verified by the Commission." Fields pointed out that there is no clarification as to when that five-year period is, and was not sure that ACHE could apply that statement to the past five years or if is now being put into effect. Because of the semester transition, (we) are already reviewing all programs. Fields did not know why the University is rushing to review and identify programs for termination when we will are already reviewing everything.

(Chair Swanson ruled that some of this discussion was out of order considering the current discussion regarding Raymond's second proposed amendment.)

J. Raymond agreed to suggestions that the second paragraph of her amendment be amended so that all programs be reviewed, not just those that fall below the Viability Standards.

G. Howze objected to the amendment, saying that the proposed committee should not have its charge stated in the resolution. He felt that Raymond's amendment included details that should be worked out at a later time.

J. Raymond responded to questions from M. Kraska (Voc. & Adult Ed.), clarifying that the ACHE Viability Standards will be used as a "flag" for identifying certain programs for review. There will be another set of guidelines for justifying the existence for programs that do not have many graduates.

The motion to include only the third paragraph as part of the amendment carried by voice vote. The motion to include the amended amendment as part of the resolution carried by voice vote.

J. Raymond asked how the action of the third "Therefore..." be carried out. K. Fields said the Commission had not yet made a plan for that action. Raymond asked if the Commission, along with the Budget Advisory Committee, would create a brand-new procedure for reallocation of funds, or is the purpose to provide some of the details about the reallocation of resources. Fields did not know how that evaluation will take place; the Commission would continue deliberations on its second charge, and at the same time examine the plan for the "one-percent solution". The Commission would collaborate with the Budget Advisory Committee in this effort. B. Burkhart said that the resolution would provide the Faculty with a structured role in the collaborative process of addressing resource reallocation. He recognized that at the time, the Administration was pressure to respond to the Trustees; however, the issue needs to be redressed.

J. Raymond said that her primary interest is how long the proposed procedure would take place. Although there was no direct Faculty input into the procedures for program elimination and resource reallocation, the she felt that the Senate should accept the procedures and quickly determine the details of the procedures (e.g. how high priority programs are defined) with much participation from the Faculty. Raymond move to strike the third "Therefore...", and to not send it to the Commission. R. Gandy seconded the motion. K. Fields asked how those "gaps in the document" would be filled in. Raymond suggested that an ad hoc committee be appointed or the Steering Committee be used for those purposes. Swanson said that, without specific guidance from the Senate, it was his prerogative to send that charge to whoever he felt would be fit to deal with it. He said that he has already made the charge to the Commission to review the guidelines for the reallocation.

The motion to strike the last "Therefore..." was opposed by voice vote.

The motion to accept the Commission's resolution as amended was carried by voice vote (see attachment).

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Jennie Raymond, Senate Secretary