Minutes

AUBURN UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

13 January 1998

Broun Hall Auditorium

ABSENT: J. Crawford, R. Jaeger, R. Kunkel, F. Lawing, T. Love, D. Lustig, A. Magg, M. Melancon, C. Pitts, T. Powe, A. Tarrer, H. Thomas, E. Thompson, D. Wilson , J. Weese.

ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): W. Abner (D. Latham), S. Bentley (D. Smith), B. Burkhalter (J. Fletcher), L. Colquit (C. Hudson), C. Dupree (V. Morgan), D. Himelrick (J. Kessler), T. Lee (D. Rosenblatt), R. Middleton (B. Brazelton), R. Mirarchi (S. Dobson), E. Moran (R. Norton), J. Neidigh (J. Bilotta), D. Shannon (J. Salisbury-Glennan).

Senate Chair Gary Swanson called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the November 11, 1997, meeting were approved as posted on the Senate Web Page.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A. President's office: William V. Muse

The 1998 session of the Alabama Legislature started on January 13, 1998. President Muse felt more confident that higher education and Auburn University will receive more favorable treatment in this session than they have in the previous three (under Governor James). (We) have done a number of things over the last several months to prepare for this legislative session. There have been meetings with legislators and members of the Auburn legislative action network. This has taken place in eight cities in the state (Huntsville, Gadsden, Anniston, Tuscaloosa, Birmingham, Montgomery, Dothan, Mobile). The University government relations staff has been in attendance at each of these meetings. These meetings have allowed (us) to present a strong case for improved funding for higher education, as well as to receive feedback from the legislation and community leaders. On January 6, 1998, Auburn University and the University of Alabama system jointly held a press conference in Montgomery to present the case for improved funding for the state's research universities. (We) were joined in this effort by the state's two most influential corporate leaders, Elmer Harris (Alabama Power Company), and Wallace Malone (South Trust Bank). Wayne Flynt was also present, and he spoke very eloquently in representing the views of the faculty. Harlan Foster (SGO-Alabama) spoke on behalf of the students. President Muse thanked Chair Swanson and SGA President Jonathan Crawford for attending. Muse has received positive feedback so far. He believed that the legislature now understands that higher education needs better funding, and that legislators are receptive to the proposal for significant increases in funding. President Muse was hopeful that Governor James would recommend an increase in funding for higher education.

(We) have been requesting an 8% increase in state appropriations, and (we) were joined in this effort by the Alabama Commission on Higher Education. In order to do this, the legislature will have to return to the "traditional split" of the Educational Trust Fund; higher education would receive one-third, and K-12 would receive the remaining two-thirds. In the current year higher education is receiving only 27%.

(We) have also been asking that higher education be able to retain in our budgets the money that is allocated for employees' retirement contributions. A "windfall" has been created by a change in accounting practices by the retirement system of Alabama. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) adopted a regulation requiring all public pension funds to value and record their assets at the current price (market value), rather than carrying on with the book values. Over the years (we) have done a good job investing our assets, this new regulation brings about a significant increase in the value of the assets (roughly $2 million). Hence, the retirement system does not need to collect as much money in order for it to be actuarially sound. Currently, employees pay 5% of their salaries into the retirement system; Auburn pays 9.66% to match the employees' amount. In order to adjust to the reduced amount of money that needs to be placed into the system, the employers contribution will be lowered from 9.66% to the range of 5-6%. Since the University makes its contribution out of its state appropriations, this change would free-up money that could be used for other purposes; one very important focus would be to increase base salaries. (We) have argued that this windfall has been earned on monies that have been contributed for the benefit of our employees. President Muse warned that the legislature can reduce appropriations by an amount equal to or slightly less than the windfall, so that money would not be available. (We) will continue to fight to retain that money in our budget, but the fight will require the efforts of the faculty.

L. Katainen (Foreign Languages & Literatures) asked a question on behalf of Dr. Madrigal (Chair of FLL). If funding for higher education is increased, will each department still be required to identify 1% of its budget for salary increases? Muse said it is still (our) commitment to do that, and that practice would be in place for a number of years. For this year, that 1% would stay within the units and would go for additional salary improvements because that is our first priority.

B. Hames (Geology) asked if there was any difference in the strength of the voice for department heads versus department chairs. Muse did not see any difference between department heads and chairs (in terms of responsibilities and status). He thought that the Department of Liberal Arts switched to a chair system primarily as a means for providing a regular rotation for service. Provost Parks said that Engineering, Agriculture, and Liberal Arts all have department chairs, but department heads and chairs are viewed the same by the administration.

R. Penaskovic (non-Senator, Religion) said that currently, a person who dies while still employed does not receive full retirement benefits. He asked if it was possible to change that situation so that the spouse would receive full benefits. Muse said he had talked to Dr. Bronner specifically regarding the case of Gordon Bond. Dr. Bronner indicated that this issue has been discussed on a number of occasions, and the idea of such a policy change was not well received. The principle situation in which an individual is at a disadvantage is in the case of an unanticipated death. The advantages are greater to a surviving spouse if the person had been retired for at least 30 days prior to death. Muse said there is always the opportunity to propose policy changes to the retirement system. Penaskovic said that the present system seems antiquated. Muse said there are many suggestions that can be made to the retirement system. One would be to require a shorter vesting period; Alabama is one of the few states requiring tens years to vest in the system (five years is more common).

T. Carey (History) felt that cutting employee contribution to the pension fund seems like a cut in benefits in the long term. Muse said that a company had conducted a study for the retirement system. The retirement system has done a "marvelous job" at investing our dollars, and the value of the assets in the fund has increased substantially. The company that conducted the study was very confidant that if the amount of money flowing into the fund was reduced, it would not in any way jeopardize the actuarial stability of the fund. The argument that Muse has presented is that (we) should be a primary beneficiary of that money because, if it does not go the employees as retirement benefits, then it should go to the employees in terms of enhanced salary.

C. Bailey (Steering Committee) said that another way of looking at the situation is as compensation. Rather than cutting back on the portion payed by the University, he asked if there had been any consideration to employee contributions being reduced. Muse had not heard that proposal yet. Apparently, for a number of years the contributions by employee and the employer were matching. As the perceived need for greater cash flow into the fund persisted, the employer's contribution increased. The increase for this year was close to $1 million, with no additional money from the state for that purpose.

J. Heilman (Dean, College Of Liberal Arts) commented on the issue of departmental heads versus chairs. Within the College of Liberal Arts, there has been no intent to treat the two approached to departmental organization differently. Gordon Bond's intent was to try to put both approaches on as equal a footing as possible.

B. Senate Chair: Gary Swanson

Chair Swanson said that Wayne Flint's comments at the recent press conference can be found in the AU Report.

The Program Review and Assessment Committee has been formed, and letters notifying members were being sent out. Some of the members are Patricia Duffy (Agriculture), Michael Hein (Architecture), Jim Harris (Business), Steve Silvern (Education), Art Chappelka (Forestry), Donna Sollie (Human Sciences), Drew Clark (Liberal Arts), and Jack Rogers (College of Sciences and Mathematics). Drew Clark is the chair of this committee.

The Faculty Welfare Committee was scheduled to meet on January 14, 1998, to discuss the Workload Policy. Swanson encouraged the Senate to make any comments.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. Calenders and Schedules Committee Proposal: Sadik Tuzun

The proposed changes to the 1999-2000 calender were provided with the agenda for the current meeting. A proposed calender for 2000-2001 was also provided with the agenda.

Tuzun thanked the members of the Committee for their work. Richard Penaskovic, Randy Pipes, Robin Jaffe, Claire Crutchley, Charles Gross, Mike Bliss, and John Fletcher. Tuzun also thanked Chetan Sankar, Christine Curtis, and the members of the University Transition Committee.

The Committee has been working on the 1999-2000 calender since the semester transition was announced, and has worked hard to make the transition as easy as possible. Tuzun reminded that the Committee works in two steps. The first is the presentation of a proposed calender to the Senate, with the following feedback and changes. The second is to present the modified calender at the next meeting, with the Senate voting on its approval.

The calender for 1999-2000 allows for the semester change. The initial plan was to have one short Summer quarter (36 class days with longer class periods) with no changes to the other quarters; this plan had been approved be the Senate. However, the shortened Summer would not allow for lab classes to take place, simply because of the nature of labs. Additionally, it is expected that enrollment for Summer 2000 will be higher than usual, because many students will try to finish their degrees before the semester transition.

A modified version of the 1999-2000 calender was approved by the Calender and Schedule Committee, in which Winter, Spring, and Summer quarters 2000 are shorter to accommodate the semester transition. One week is added to the Summer quarter, with Monday graduation. This would allow lab classes to be held in the Summer quarter.

In the proposed 2000-2001 calender, there would be 74 days in the Fall semester, which is a result of the semester transition. (The Senate had voted to have 75 days per semester.) The Thanksgiving holiday would start at noon on November 22, 2000. The first Spring semester would have a spring break from March 26 to April 1, which was requested by the students. The Summer term would be divided into two sessions, each of 25 days; final exams would be given on the last day of class. Hours will be determined so that students will still get full credit for classes taken in the Summer.

J. Grover (Immediate Past Senate Chair) pointed out that on the Semester calender, Thanksgiving holiday is the "abbreviated" version, rather than one week. He also noted that Summer graduation is still being considered. He then asked if the holiday in January was to be "Heroes Day", rather than specifically Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Glenn Howze said that the Senate had approved it as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

P. Popovich (Nutrition & Food Science) asked why Spring semester would start on January 9. If that were to happen, the Summer session could be moved up a week as well.

C. Hudson (Finance) said that January 10 seemed quite early, as compared to other schools on the semester system. He felt that the Spring semester should not start until January 17. Also, the proposed schedule has Fall semester ending early; most semester schools do not end Fall until just before Christmas. If a week were given for the Thanksgiving holiday, that would eliminate the confusion around having half a day of classes (Wednesday, November 22), and it would extend the Fall semester to late December. Tuzun reminded the Senate that last year, the Senate agreed to not have a full week for Thanksgiving.

R. Gandy (Physics) was concerned with academic appointments, which would be August 15 to May 15. The proposed 2000-2001 schedule is well designed in terms of academic appointments.

H. Rotfeld (Marketing & Transportation) said that the Senate had approved that semesters be 75 days long. Tuzun said that the 74 day period for Fall 2000 is a result of the semester transition; he guaranteed that all following semesters will be 75 days. Rotfeld asked why there would be a half-day on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. Tuzun said that was an effort to have a semester between 74 and 75 days. Tuzun also said that the Committee has looked at calenders of other schools that are already on the semester system.

R. Bartlett (Industrial Design) was in favor of short Thanksgiving holiday. In regard to the Spring semester ending "early", he thought that that would give graduates a better advantage in job searches. Tuzun said the Committee decided to have the Spring semester end early to give people a chance to recuperate; the two short Summer sessions will certainly be tough on the students as well as the faculty.

L. Katainen did not think that Spring semester should not start any earlier than January 9; December 16 to January 2 would not be enough time to recuperate from the Fall semester. She also relayed the sentiment of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures for the 1999-2000 calender, which is that the burden of the semester transition should be spread over three quarters rather than in Summer 2000 alone. However, one member of that department had asked if it was anticipated that there will be an increase in the number of minutes of meeting time for classes during those slightly shortened quarters. If not, there could be problems of contact hours and accreditation for those courses. Tuzun said they had not yet discussed matters of academic standards. J. Grover said that he had worked out one schedule that required a 60-minute period in that Summer transition quarter.

T. Smith (Family & Child Development) asked for clarification about why the first transition calender was changed (in which the Summer quarter was only 36 days long). J. Grover said that most schedules are organized with a certain number of lab hours and a certain number of weeks to complete the schedule. If the weeks are shortened the lab periods must be lengthened. However, most lab activities are designed to take a certain amount of time, and fewer lab periods would require that labs be completely resigned to fit into the lengthened lab periods. In the modified 1999-2000 schedule, there will be four more days available to complete all the lab activities. G. Swanson gave an example from the Physics Department. Having four hour labs (instead of three hours) would require that one lab be completed and another started in the same period. That second lab would be finished in the next lab period, and another started, and so on. If Summer quarter was 40 days, lab activities would start in the first week of class and continue through the last week, so that all labs could be performed. Smith said that if the 40-day Summer schedule will reasonably accommodate most classes with labs, he would support the modified schedule.

M. Watkins (Philosophy) asked if class periods would be extended for all three quarters that are shortened in the modified schedule. Tuzun said those days may have to be arranged also. If the Senate approves the modified schedule, it Tuzun would have to discuss it with the Academic Standards Committee to find out what consequences will occur. He did not anticipate that teaching would exceed 60 minutes per period.

S. Johnson (Substitute, Zoology & Wildlife) pointed out that certain dates were incorrectly listed in the calenders. Those errors would be corrected for the approved calender.

T. Smith realized that extending the Summer 2000 quarter to 40 days would affect all classes for three quarters, and asked if it was reasonable to just ask those classes with labs to work in an extra lab period with the 36-day Summer quarter. Tuzun said that the sentiment of Provost Parks, President Muse, and the Calender and Schedule Committee was that it would be best to have only one quarter affected by the transition. However, the lab situation did need to be dealt with and the result was the modified calender.

D. Leonard (Discrete & Statistical Sciences) suggested that exam week for Summer 2000 be omitted to extend that quarter. The Committee had considered that, as well as eliminating Independence Day Holiday.

A. Dunlop (English) asked that representatives from the College of Science and Mathematics give insight into the difficulties of scheduling an additional lab in the 36-day Summer calender. Chair Swanson said it would not be very feasible because there usually are not any (Physics) labs unoccupied to set up extra labs.

An informal vote indicated that the Senate preferred the 1999-2000 calender with the 36-day Summer quarter.

Tuzun offered other options. The Senate did not support the elimination of Independence Day. The Senate was more in favor of not having exam week in Summer 2000, with finals to take place on the last day of class. In this case, classes would be extended into that last week.

B. Faculty Handbook Committee: Proposed Changes in the Scientific Misconduct Policy: Randy Pipes

A newly revised version of the "Auburn University Scientific Misconduct Policy" was provided at the current meeting (see attached). (This version contained some changes that were not present in the version provided with the agenda for the current meeting.)

The reasons for most of the proposed changes to the policy were explained throughout the text, while other changes were required by the federal government. Until these changes are made, the University is in violation of federal law.

Several years ago, the government required that the University have a Scientific Misconduct Policy. Last summer the government finally asked that the University provide it with the Policy, at which time (we) were informed that the University is in violation of many federal regulations. Most of the violations pertain to public health. The Office of the Vice President for Research prepared a response to the government (which was the first version of the revised policy ).

The first issue the Committee dealt with was related to the source of funds for research, as stated in the original policy; the proposed changes on Page 2 of the document removes "internal ambiguity" that was written into the first policy.

Also, the Committee had some discussion as to whether there should be a time limit for taking action on scientific misconduct. Policies of other universities and of various disciplines were examined for this issue. Two motions resulted from this. First, there is the recognition that there is some need to act on the proposed changes. Second, the document needs to be re-examined in several areas so that all segments of the University be considered.

Pipes discussed the three latest changes to the document. First, the paragraph on Page 3 that begins, "In order to effectively follow through with any allegations of misconduct..." was moved from the "Inquiry" section. Second, "complainant" in the highlighted text of the new version had been changed from "respondent" in the earlier version. Finally, the last sentence of the "Inquiry" section was to remain; it had been struck in the previous version. The original reason for striking it was that it was contained in the "Resolution" section of the document. However, one of the clauses in the relevant sentence of the "Resolution" section implied that that action would only be relevant to investigations. As the document now reads, if someone makes wildly false and malicious allegations and it never goes to an investigation, action can be taken against that person.

The motion to adopt the newly revised policy carried by voice vote.

Pipes moved that the Senate establish an ad hoc committee to study the entire scope of the document, with a view to revisions as appropriate.

J. Grover asked if there was an existing committee to examine the issue. Pipes said that this task has a "huge scope", involving people from many disciplines. The Faculty Handbook Committee has some people who have expertise in scientific misconduct, but the Committee felt that the Senate needs to carefully construct a committee that is representative of all the potentially interested parties. Grover asked if the Grievance Committee would be appropriate; G. Howze saw some overlap between the issues that the Grievance Committee deals with and scientific misconduct, but he was not sure that committee would be suitable.

M. Moriarty (VP for Research) supported the motion to create an ad hoc committee. However, the policy that is currently in place has worked in the past. Four cases in the last three years have gone through an inquiry stage of possible scientific misconduct, and the current policy has met the needs of the University and the people involved. Moriarty remarked that even though the policy could stand some revision, the University does have a working model. If an ad hoc committee is created, he urged that some of the senior faculty who served in those inquiries be used as a source of information as to how the policy works in practice.

The motion to establish an ad hoc committee to study the document and the issue of scientific misconduct carried by voice vote.

RESOLUTIONS:

Resolution to Support the Proposed Honors College

A copy of the Resolution was provided with the agenda for the current meeting.

P. Johnson (Political Science) asked if the Senate would be simply approving a new name for the Honors Program, or if there would be expansion and change of the existing excellent Honors Program. Chair Swanson said it is primarily a name change, with no additional administrative changes. It would serve to distinguish the program from junior colleges that have "Honors Programs". There is also a national organization of "Honors Colleges", and Auburn University is well-qualified to join that group. Hopefully the change will be a magnet for additional funding and students into the Honors College, as has happened with other institutions.

Provost Parks said the University is clearly qualified to have an Honors College. The existing Honors Program has rigorous requirements for entry into and continuation in the program. Also, Auburn has a "Residential College", with four residences set aside for participating students.

T. Carey offered an amendment to the Resolution to reword the last paragraph of the amendment to read:

"Be it therefore resolved that the University Senate of Auburn University enthusiastically supports the proposal to change the name of the Auburn University Honors Program to the Auburn University Honors College."

The motion was seconded, and the substitution was approved by voice vote.

T. Smith asked how the structure of the program would change. Chair Swanson said that the administration of the program would not change, and that it would not become a "college" in the sense that most people understand.

H. Rotfeld asked why it was necessary for the Senate to pass this resolution, and wondered what the Board of Trustees would object to. Provost Parks did not think the Board would object, but wanted to be able to tell the Board that the Senate reviewed the name change.

The motion to adopt the Resolution (as amended) carried by voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

(Signed)

Jennie Raymond, Senate Secretary