Minutes

AUBURN UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

11 November 1997

Broun Hall Auditorium

ABSENT: W. Abner, A. Cook, J. Crawford, C. Dupree, S. Finn-Bodner, N. Haak, G. Halpin, R. Henderson, F. Lawing, T. Martinson, M. Melancon, L. Myers, D. Norris, T. Powe, F. Smith, H. Thomas, E. Thompson.

ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): B. DeMent (M. Hendrix), B. Gladden (R. Stauffer), D. Hendrix (K. Chang), J. Hung (R. Jaeger), T. Lee (D. Smith), C. Price (G. Smith, Jr.), J. Regan (S. Bothwell), H. Rotfeld (A. Abernathy), J. Sheppard (M. Mercer).

Chair Gary Swanson called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the October 7, 1997, Senate meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A. President's office: William V. Muse

The Board of Trustees had a meeting scheduled for November 21, 1997. The proposal for approval for the 1997-1998 operating budget was on the agenda for that meeting. If approved, each full-time continuing employee will receive a 2% raise effective January 1, 1998. Additionally, these employees will receive a one-time salary supplement of $500 in December. There will also be funds to address salary inequities, with the primary emphasis on gender and racial inequities.

Also on the agenda for the Trustees' meting is a proposal for a scholarship program for the dependent children of AU employees. Thanks to a generous donation from the Athletic Department, an endowment has been established that will provide the initial funding for this program. This should be an attractive benefit for those employees who have children that want to attend Auburn University.

We are concerned about the decline in graduate enrollment that occurred this Fall. We are initiating a program to provide in-state tuition fellowships to graduate teaching and research assistants in selected doctoral programs. We want to enhance our competitive position with the improvement and retention of superior doctoral students in academic programs in areas that have been identified as "areas of interest". We hope to begin this program in Winter quarter with 50 fellowships, increasing the fellowships by 50 per year until there is a total of 200 per year. Fellowships will be administered through the Graduate School. Muse extended his thanks to Dr. Pritchett and Provost Parks for developing the program.

Muse has asked the Senate Compensation Committee to work with the University Budget Advisory Committee in developing common definitions, time frames, and institutions by which administrative salary comparisons can be made.

T. Carey (History) asked how and which Ph.D. programs would be selected for the doctoral fellowships. Muse said that Pritchett and Parks would be talking with the Graduate Council about this issue. Preliminary guidelines call for the identification of programs with heavy teaching responsibilities for doctoral students. There will also be the identification of programs of existing or emerging research excellence, in which there will be graduate research assistants.

R. Mirarchi (Zoo. & Wild.) asked what the source was for the fellowships. Muse said that as (we) "closed the books on this last year", some revenue was discovered that had not been budgeted. Some of the revenue was from additional interest income that had not been anticipated. Mirarchi then asked how many scholarships for dependent children (of AU employees) would be awarded. The Athletic Department gave $250,000 to the University last year; interest earnings from that endowment will be used for the scholarships. Muse hoped to be able to supplement that in subsequent years. The maximum will probably be $1,000 per student per year, and will be awarded on a one-year basis. If the number of applicants exceeds the monies available, the scholarships will be awarded on the basis of need.

R. Saba (Economics) asked whether the fellowships for doctoral students would be teaching tuition or full fellowships. Muse said that they would be for in-state tuition.

G. Howze asked Muse how much the total funds would be for the doctoral fellowships. Muse said the scholarship fund would be limited by the earnings from the $250,000 gift.

B. Senate Chair: Gary Swanson

Chair Swanson announced that Dary Erwin would be on campus for the week of the current meeting. Dr. Erwin is an authority on the assessment of curriculum and student learning and development.

The Faculty Workload Policy was generated through the deans and the administration. The policy has gone to the Faculty Welfare Committee, and that committee invites faculty comments. The policy would be available on the Senate web page.

Recently, ACUPFE met; one of the topics of discussion was that the faculty need to be present in the legislative session.

G. Howze (Senate Chair-elect) announced a meeting on November 11, 1997, that would address the issue of how faculty might become more involved in efforts to influence the state legislature. Howze mentioned that a faculty member in Geology has a brother who is a lobbyist for one of the business organizations in Alabama, and he will be talking about how faculty can be more effective in Montgomery.

C. Dean of the Library: Stella Bentley

There will be a new online system within the library. The planning for this began roughly a year and a half ago, and the decision to use this system was made in the Spring. (We) are at the implementation stage now, and the transition will be complete by Winter quarter. LUIS will be terminated.

The new system is AUBIECAT, and it is a web-based, Windows-type system. The Library will lose its online records including outstanding fines, but a paper file will remain. Bentley encouraged people to pay their fines now while its still easy. Also, for the first month there will be rare occasions in which someone will be asked to fill out a slip to check out books.

For about two to three weeks, the Library will not be able to check in the current periodicals as they arrive. To alleviate problems, document delivery services will be available. Also, approximately 3,000 journals are available online.

Training sessions for faculty and staff are scheduled in December, and information will be printed in the AU Report. Library staff can also visit departments for special training sessions.

The switch to the new system will eventually allow people to do more from a desktop computer. For example, a person can review his own circulation status, recall items, and renew items online.

D. Information on Proposed Honors College: William Gwin, Director of Honors Program

Information about the proposal was provided with the agenda for the current meeting; the full proposal is available on the Senate homepage (see agenda for November 1, 1997).

Gwin acknowledged the people who helped develop the Honors Program: Jack Rogers (Mathematics), Judy Troy (English), Mal Cutchins (Aerospace Engineering), Sharon Oswald (Business), John Watford (President of the Honors student group), Alan Kronenberg, Emily Brown, Carol Chancey, Jim Sneider, and Robin Palmer. Currently, there about 560 students in the Honors Program.

Gwin gave an overview of the Honors Program. The Program exists on "good will"; that is, it is rare to find an honors program that is heavily financed. Also, the Honors Programs has to be a good steward of its resources. The primary mission of the Program is to recruit the best students possible, and to develop those students to their fullest potential. The Program is overlaid and interrelates with the various schools and colleges at Auburn; however, Gwin said it should underlay other programs so that the students build a good foundation for their undergraduate education. The Honors Programs works with recruitment, student development, community involvement, and leadership.

It was once unique for a university to have an honors program. Now, it is simply a continuation of the accelerated programs found at most high schools. Students who participate in accelerated programs in high school will rarely go to a university where they cannot continue to take courses that are challenging. In the last few years, Auburn's Honors Program has developed programs to allow many types of students reach their potential, such as the academically gifted, academically challenged, disabled, and minorities.

The Honors Program grew quickly until this year. Recruiting takes place through many avenues, such as meetings with parents, War Eagle Day, transfer days, high school days, and written invitations. In 1989 there were about 100 new students every year. This year the Program got 205 new students, but the predicted number was 250. Part of this is caused by Auburn's tuition increases (both in-state and out-of-state) while neighboring states raise their offerings and scholarships. Also, the president of the University of Alabama designated $9 million to recruit outstanding students this year. Of the 800 students in UA's honors program, 60% of them are on at least tuition scholarships. Some of those students have tuition and housing scholarships, and all the outstanding scholars that went this year to UA received a laptop computers. Two years ago, one of the founders of Netscape gave the University of Mississippi $5.4 million for their honors program; this year, all of their honors students received full scholarships. Two years ago, Auburn lost more of its honors students to LSU than any other program in the country. A few years previous, LSU's honors program director changed the program to an honors college. Within the first year of that change, their honors college received $1 million in endowments. In addition to LSU, University of Mississippi, University of Southern Mississippi, University of South Carolina, and Clemson are now honors colleges.

Auburn has a many advantages as it now stands. There is a very active honors student group, and there are honors' residence halls. AU has a rich tradition of caring teachers, there are three Camp War Eagle sessions, a mentor system, honors housing, and endowments for the Honors Program have grown from $50,000 to $650,000 in the last seven years. The Program offers direction on leadership, creativity and problem solving, a national issues forum (created through a $54,000 grant from the Kedrick Foundation). The Program has developed the prestigious Scholarship Program, and 26 students were awarded scholarships this past year (Rhodes, Marshall, Mellon, Goldwater, and Rotary scholarships). Presently there are two excellent Rhodes candidates, one Marshall candidate, two Fulbright candidates, and four candidates for Goldwater. This year, three Rotary scholarships have been awarded, and in the past seven years, Auburn has had six Goldwater winners. Finally, there have been five USA Today scholars.

There are 700-800 honors programs in the U.S. In 1994, there were 24 honors colleges, and this year, there are over 70. It is said that in the next decade, honors programs will only exist in community colleges. Currently there are 22 honors programs in Alabama, and no honors colleges. The directors of honors colleges indicate that the change greatly improves recruitment and endowments.

The National Collegiate Honors Council has developed 16 characteristics of a fully-developed honors program. Auburn fulfills all and exceeds many of those characteristics. Also, there is a proposal to develop a Phi Beta Kappa chapter at Auburn. If (we) act now, Auburn can be the first honors college in Alabama and "reap the benefits" that would result.

A conversion to and honors college is not a struggle for funds. It is an opportunity to take the resources available, redesignate them, and gain from the change. Gwin gave the example of the honors residence halls. Before they were established, honors students were living all over campus without an honors community. By establishing honors residence halls, a center of excellence and academic achievement was created, which has already begun to enhance the University. At least 25% of the students in those residence halls are non-honors students (currently that level is 36%).

R. Mirarchi asked what the difference is between an honors college and an honors program. Gwin said that "honors program" has come to mean a relatively small program at a community college. In large universities, the names are changing to "honors college". Also, many of those programs at the small colleges do not begin to fulfill the characteristics of a fully-developed honors program. Gwin's feeling was that once those characteristics are fulfilled, the university should consider moving to the next level. The name change will give Auburn more prominence, and will allow (us) to do much more in the future as (we) are better known.

J. Heath (Mathematics) asked what the administrative structure of an honors college is compared to an honors program. Gwin said that he acts as a half-time teacher in architecture and a half-time director in the Honors Program. There is one half-time assistant and one full-time secretary. Gwin did not see any changes in the Program unless there are "drastic changes" in the University.

R. Mirarchi reiterated that this seems merely like a name change. Auburn's Honor Program has fulfilled the 16 characteristics, which shows a certain standard of student, course rigor, and prestigious scholarships associated with the Program. Additionally, the Program has the highest academic entry requirement in Alabama.

C. Bailey (Steering Committee) asked if the title "Director" would be changed to "Dean". Gwin did not know if that was the case, and did not think that would be his decision.

J. Dane (Agr. & Soils) asked how the University of Alabama received $10 million for their honors program. Gwin said that when the current president came in, he designated that money for the honors program, the enhancement of undergraduate education, and the recruitment of outstanding students. Provost Parks said that money was a gift.

E. Information on the New Health Insurance Program: Lisa Terry and Ron Herring

(Employees have already received a packet regarding the new insurance plan.) Auburn University has offered two Blue Cross Blue Shield options to its employees. Terry compared some aspects of the Personal Choice Managed Care Plan (network) with the traditional Preferred Care Plan. In the network plan, the individual visits a primary care physician. The individual must go through his primary care physician for all medical care, and all physicians must be "in network" to prevent higher charges. Out-of-network penalties will apply even if a physician is included in the network, but was not referred to by the primary care physician. Out-of-area benefits apply for dependents who are covered under the contract or if an individual lives out-of-state; those benefits are not as stringent as the out-of-network benefits. Also, in the network plan an individual can change primary care physicians only twice per year. With emergency room visits (true, life-threatening emergencies), an individual must contact his primary care physician within 48 hours of being admitted to avoid penalties. With the network, allergy testing and treatment is 100% covered. Terry discussed some of the other differences between the two plans, and pointed out that generally, there are more rules to abide by with the Personal Choice plan. She stressed that an individual must go through his primary care physician for all work and referrals to avoid penalties. Finally, there is a 6% difference in premiums between the two plans.

Information was provided at the current meeting regarding mental health and substance abuse. This is one of the biggest changes from the original insurance plan. With the network plan there is 100% coverage for in-patient physician services, and 50% out-patient after the deductible is met. However, an individual's choice of physicians is very limited. There are only two places in the Auburn-Opelika area; if an individual goes outside the network, he receives no benefits. Out-of-state dependents do have out-of-area benefits.

L. Colquit (Finance) asked if an individual has to pay the co-pay when visiting a physician that was referred by the primary care physician. Terry said that with the new Personal Choice plan, the person is responsible for the co-pay at the primary care office as well as the referral's office.

R. Mirarchi asked what happens when the primary care physician does not "approve" a specialist that the person was already dealing with. Terry said the primary care physician may do that, but in most cases will try to work with the person. Pregnancy is the only condition that is "grand fathered in".

R. Jaeger (Elec. Eng.) related that he and his wife would never consider switching to the new plan, but they were concerned that this is the first step in a long-term plan to phase out the old system. Terry and Herring said that was not the intent at all. Herring said the University Insurance and Benefits Committee wanted to look at other options, just as the state has. Jaeger said that he was not concerned about intent, and that he will be looking at the situation in seven or eight years to see where (we) are. Jaeger then said that he could not imagine what the incentive is to a physician being a primary care physician. He felt that the physician would now receive hundreds of phone calls each year that would potentially take away from an individual's health care. Terry said that some physicians will not accept new patients once they have reached a certain level. Also, because Auburn University has so many employees, a physician would lose business by not being a primary care physician.

L. Katainen (For. Lang. & Lit.) asked about prescriptions under the new plan. Terry said that prescriptions are covered the same as there are now; generic drugs are $5 and name brand drugs are $15. Katainen also wanted to know the restrictions are for switching from one of the plans to another. Terry said that there is an annual open enrollment, at which time a person can change insurance plans; this is the only time during the year when a person can change. Katainen then asked if there is any difference in coverage for existing conditions. Terry said there are no limitations on pre-existing conditions as of January 1, 1998, on either plan.

OLD BUSINESS:

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

The resolution was provided at the current meeting (see attached). Fields said that in addition to the items that are included in the resolution, there are actions that can be taken directly by faculty, which the Commission feels may be helpful in modifying the effects of recent financial difficulties. The faculty may increase their efforts to improve income from contracts and grants. There are administrative units that may assist (us) in these activities, but these are sources of funds over which we, the faculty, have some control. The Commission believes that the faculty should exert its efforts to improve those. Also, the faculty can ask its supporters in the state to utilize their influence to persuade elected officials to support Auburn appropriately. We have an extremely loyal and influential group of former students who would probably help us in these difficult times if asked to do so. However, many (probably most) of these people do not even realize that there is a problem.

Other suggestions were considered by the Commission. The Commissions believes that the University should exploit private sources of support. The current arrangement, which charges the Alumni Foundation with this duty, has some clear advantages. The major advantage is that "we do not have people stepping on each other" in the process. The disadvantage is discouraging efforts to raise private funds at the departmental or college level. The permissions that are required for faculty, departments, or colleges to raise funds are extensive and tend to reduce the amounts of those funds that may be available. Any effort to raise funds should include an attempt to increase the number of named or titled professorships. These should be endowments that allow the University to supplement the salaries of existing faculty rather than to recruit new faculty. Also, the University should expand and fine-tune its lobbying efforts. Our success (or lack of success) in obtaining a fair share of legislative appropriations over the last several years is evidence that our legislative liaison might be more effective.

Fields then commented on some items in the Resolution. References in the resolution to the different Divisions of AU's budget are as follows: Division I is the budget for Auburn Main Campus; Division II is the budget for AUM (and is not included in the Resolution); Division III is the budget for the Agricultural Experiment Station; Division IV is the budget for the Extension Service. There are "fire walls" that prevent the transfer of Division III and IV funds to Division I, but not vice versa. In late 1994-early 1995, discussion about program and administrative priorities included faculty participation. Fields pointed out that President Muse had earlier mentioned there is already some compliance with Principle #2 of the Resolution. The Commission applauds the administration's efforts to bring tuition at Auburn to the regional average. The Commission feels this is an important component of the overall effort to modify the fiscal problems of the University.

Chair Swanson pointed out that because the Resolution was not distributed with the agenda, it would require two-thirds of the Senate to suspend the rules, which would allow the Senate to consider the adoption of the Resolution. Immediate Past Senate Chair John Grover moved to suspend the rules and to adopt the Resolution. L. Katainen seconded the motion. A two-thirds majority to suspend the rules was determined by voice vote.

B. Trimble (Steering Committee) asked for details on overhead costs and self-supporting auxiliary services, and whether these would be potential sources of increased funds. Fields said that was exactly the idea. There is an overhead charge for auxiliary services, such as the Bookstore and Athletics. The Commission's concern is that overhead charge be a reasonable businesslike charge, and the auxiliary enterprises should be self-supporting. A proportion of the profits they generate should be paid to the University for space usage, utilities, and the like. The University Bookstore should not have a competitive advantage over other bookstores in town.

A. Abernathy (Mark. & Transp.) asked for details on Principle #4 of the Resolution. Fields said that in any budgeting process, the budget should be considered in terms of what is needed in order to support an activity. It does not make sense to begin with an incremental budget every year, in which allocations are fixed and each year the same proportions are used as a starting point. (We) should "start with a clean slate". If market forces are such that the requirement in one area is higher than that of another area, it might be necessary to shift funds from lower to higher need. Fields referred to it as "zero-based budgeting", in which the budgeting process takes place every year, as opposed to budgeting based on what was used in the previous year.

J. Dane (Agr. & Soils) said that the state legislature determines how much money goes to Divisions III and IV, and asked how the University could reallocate those funds. Provost Parks said that several years ago, the state consolidated Auburn's budget. (We) have "religiously" re-separated those funds based on the budgets of Divisions I, III, and IV. There has been very little interchange of funds between those Divisions; however, Divisions III and IV have paid some service fees back to the General Fund for services that are provided. There has been very little money from Division I that goes into Divisions III and IV; in fact, most people who teach receive money from Division I for teaching, and their research money comes from Division III. Fields said that deliberations as to how money is divided between the Divisions should be rational decisions each year.

R. Muntifering (Anim. & Dairy Sci.) asked if the federal court "Murphy Ruling" might have any implications to this Resolution. Provost Parks said that decisions made about Division IV funds are not simply Auburn's decisions. They are system decisions that involve Alabama A & M and perhaps even the federal courts. To some degree there are complicated decisions regarding Division III funds, because there is a competition that funds have to be allocated to annually.

Chair Swanson said that this year's budget guidelines show a 2% across-the-board increase. Provost Parks said that other sources had to be identified to provide for the increases in Divisions III and IV.

M. Watkins (Philosophy) wanted to know what counts as an "auxiliary enterprise". Fields said that his understanding was that the Athletics Department is a separate auxiliary enterprise that includes all of the various sports. The Commission's intent was not to indicate that each sport be self-supporting. The intent was that there be a reasonable overhead for all auxiliaries. There are currently some overhead charges, and some are now being audited for utilities.

G. Howze said that outside grants and contracts have to pay an overhead charge; those charges are supposed to reflect the cost of administering those grants. The overhead charge for auxiliary enterprises should reflect the true cost of administering those programs. Fields said that in each case, the auxiliary enterprises and their overheard charges should be reviewed in terms of what their market costs would be. Fields said that the Commission did not conduct a study on the topic, but he "seriously doubted" that the current overhead charges are in-line with market costs and that in many cases they are not 40-45% of what would be appropriate.

D. Himelrick (Horticulture) asked if campus maintenance is considered an auxiliary. He gave the example that when his department needs repair work done, it must go through the Facilities Division. Often the charges are two to four times the standard commercial rate. He felt that much money could be saved by out-sourcing those services. Fields did not consider that an auxiliary enterprise, even though it does in a way compete with similar businesses in the community. He felt that the solution would be to either charge a more reasonable rate, or to make it a candidate for out-sourcing.

D. Large (VP, Bus. & Finance) said that in most situations in the near future, most internal charges (non-auxillary) will be guided by recently-issues federal standards. These standards basically say that if a unit is charging another department internally, it has to be on the basis of established and documented cost. It cannot have a built-in profit or reserve component. Historically, the overhead charge for auxillary enterprises has been 1.5% of revenues, which may or may not seem reasonable. This may seem low compared to the overhead charges for contracts and grants, but those involve the allocation of such things as building space, facilities, and departmental administration.

J. Grover said that in terms of the Football Program, 1.5% is probably less than what most universities charge. He cited the example of a recent football game, during which Swingle Hall was vandalized both on the outside and inside of the building. The Athletics Department is essentially getting building use, because the building is left open so that the bathrooms are made available to football fans. The real cost should be considered more thoroughly.

R. Mirarchi was not comfortable voting on Principle #4 because Provost Parks had said he was not sure reallocation between Divisions I, III, and IV is even possible. Parks said there is a long history of legislative intent that certain parts of Auburn's budget be reserved for the Experiment Station and the Extension System; he did not want to violate that intent. Fields asked if the intent includes the amounts that are allocated. Parks said that is has historically been set at a certain amount, with additions on to it. The University has tried to maintain those amounts, and (we) do not feel that there should be a redistribution of those funds between divisions. Fields said that the Commissions's intent is that the "firewalls come down". Parks said that the money for salary increases in Divisions III and IV came from their budgets. In trying to meet the $2 million required to provide a competitive program between Alabama A & M and AU Experiment Station (under the Title 6 Court Order), (we) provided some one-time money from the General Fund to cover that the first year and part of the second year. That was an emergency situation, in which (we) had to do something to help the Experiment Station.

D. Kunkel (Dean, Coll. of Education) agreed with the first four paragraphs of the Resolution, but was confused with the intent of the "Therefore..." statement. The College of Education had initiated a way to make sure that the policies, priorities, and goals inside that unit were being dealt with by a body that was predominantly senior faculty. He worried about Principle #4, which deals with moving money across departments between colleges. He was also worried that the Commission be involved in possible reorganization or restructuring of programs. Fields said there had been much discussion about the reallocation of funds between departments with colleges. He presumed that Dean Kunkel currently has the authority to reallocate funds between departments in the College of Eduation (with faculty consultation). Reallocation can also occur between colleges in schools, and between departments within colleges. The intent of the Commission is that the allocation of funds is a process that is University-wide, rather than being incremental budgeting from year to year. Each college would have a budget that must be defended. Already funds are reallocated between departments; the same issue should be addresses among colleges. Reorganization and restructuring of the University also has to be done University-wide. However, there is a historical precedent in this region for Boards of Trustees (or Directors) to reorganize colleges and schools without faculty input and consultation. (We) should have those deliberations going on to see whether or not we have an efficient organization for this institution. On matters of possible re-organization or restructuring, there are really three choices: (1) not consider this issue at all; (2) the administration handles this issue and makes the decisions; and (3) a faculty group handle the issue.

J. Marion (Dean, Coll. of Agr.) applauded the intent of the Resolution. There is a fast-track study team in the College of Agriculture that is looking at restructuring that College. The team is making progress, but it is a slow process. He felt (we) would be better served if there was some type of general proposal to pass in order to start looking at these issues, and not define so closely what we are going to do. He also felt that Principle #4 is "very troubling" because of the various limitations on the transfer of resources between Divisions; that issue must be approached with much caution. Marion emphasized that he did not want to discourage faculty involvement in the process. He pointed out the success of the University Budget Advisory Committee. Finally, he said that he would like to see the Resolution re-written more generally.

G. Howze felt that the Resolution should be passed in its current wording. He asked for those people who disagree with Principle #4 to notice that the wording is, "... the possibility of reallocating funds...." In regard to restructuring, a number of institutions in the region have undergone restructuring without any faculty involvement. Howze said that the point of Principle #4 is that if, and when, the time for restructuring comes, there should be a faculty committee in place that will consider that matter and have major input into it. He mentioned that one problem the faculty had with the "viability list" is that it included programs at the department level and below. Less than 40% of Division I funds get to the department and below. In order to save money, everything must be considered.

J. Raymond (Senate Secretary) asked where the plans for reorganization or restructuring might originate. Fields said that recommendations can be submitted by individuals, departmental or college committees, or administration. The purpose it that when these deliberations take place, a predominantly faculty committee should be involved.

R. Kunkel was concerned that "reorganization or restructuring" could be exploited by people above the college level. He asked why the wording is such that deliberations go beyond schools and colleges. Fields said that some individuals on the Commission feel that these allocations should be across a "broader spectrum". Kunkel felt there should be a faculty body involved in reallocations at and below the college level, and reallocations above the college level is within the jurisdiction of this entire body. Chair Swanson said that the Program Review and Assessment Committee, will take input from all the colleges this year and then deliberate on the broader view. He guessed that the same general process would occur with these other considerations. Kunkel said that was exactly why he thinks Principle #4 should end at the college level.

The motion to accept the Resolution was defeated by hand vote (in favor: 18, opposed: 38).

NEW BUSINESS:

Report from the Steering Committee on Criteria for the Program Review and Assessment Committee: Gary Swanson

The report was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. The report includes guidelines that the Committee will use when they start deliberating on the inputs from the various colleges and schools on program viability. These activities will begin in January 1998.

The guidelines will be passed to the Committee, and the Committee will be asked to first review the guidelines and then extend them for subsequent years. In the future, the Committee (which will likely become a standing committee) will be looking at other flags than simply viability for programs under review.

The motion to accept the guidelines was carried by voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

(Signed)

Jennie Raymond, Senate Secretary