ABSENT: W. Abner, J. Cherry, J. Crawford, C. Dupree, N. Haak, G. Halpin, B. Hames, R. Jaeger, P. Johnson, F. Lawing, A. Magg, J. Melville, R. Miller, J. Morgan, R. Muntifering, C. Pitts, D. Shannon, T. Smith, A. Tarrer, E. Thompson.

ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): L. Colquitt (C. Hudson), J. Hung (A. Hodel), R. Mirarchi (S. Dobson), E. Morrison (L. Myers), J. Novak (G. Traxler), T. Powe (J. Humburg), C. Price (J. Worthington), R. Ripley (M. Klemm).

Senate Chair Gary Swanson called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the January 13, 1998, meeting were approved as posted on the Senate Web Page.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A. Senate Chair: Gary Swanson

A Nominations Committee has been formed for the offices of Senate Chair, Chair-elect, Secretary, and Secretary-elect. John Grover chairs that committee; nominees should be directed to Grover.

A Tuition Assessment Committee has been set up as a University ad hoc committee, and includes administration as well as faculty. Names of volunteers for that committee should be forwarded to Chair Swanson or Secretary Raymond so that the Rules Committee can select five nominees for the three faculty spots on that committee.

The Promotion and Tenure Committee has completed its first round of deliberations.

Provost Paul Parks has announced his retirement in September of this year. Chair Swanson pointed out that Provost Parks' departure will not interrupt or delay the search for deans for Liberal Arts and Agriculture. The position of Provost will not be filled before those two deans positions are filled. No interim Provost is anticipated; Provost Parks has agreed to continue his service until a new Provost is selected. A search committee for the Provost should be complete in a few weeks from the present meeting.

Chair Swanson asked for Senate input regarding the Board of Trustees' lack of support for the tuition increase (this occurred at the last Board meeting). The Board had committed that (we) are going to move Auburn's tuition to the regional average. The Board did not support a proposed increase of 7.6% (down from the originally proposed 8.9%). The Board had said that the increase is supposed to be connected to various cuts within the University. Chair Swanson asked the Senate for "good anecdotes" to present to the Board that demonstrate what has happened to quality as a result of budget cuts. Wayne Flint has already reported the case in the History Department, where many faculty members have left Auburn for higher pay elsewhere. Chair Swanson would send some of those reports to the AU Report and perhaps the Montgomery Advertiser.

Chair-elect Glenn Howze asked for the names of the other members of the Nominations Committee; these members are Barbara Struempler, Yvonne Kozlowski, Jim Bradley. The Committee is usually composed of past officers of the Senate. The Committee will present its slate at the March meeting of the Senate and voting will take place at the Spring General Faculty meeting.

B. President's office: William V. Muse

Provost Parks plans to retire from the University effective September 30, 1998. Provost Parks will have completed five years as Auburn's first provost, and will have served approximately 33 years total. The role of provost is a challenging one. President Muse speculated that at one time or another, every one present had disagreed with some decision made by Parks. Parks has performed his job with great skill, with an unusual love and respect for this institution. President Muse expressed his heart-felt thanks and gratitude for the job Parks has done.

A search for a new provost will begin shortly. Provost Parks had agreed to continue to serve until his successor has been selected and is serving. President Muse has asked for nominations from the Deans and other people who might be appointed to the search committee; he hoped to have that committee appointed within a week or so.

President Muse extended congratulations to Richard Brinker on his appointment as Auburn's new Dean of Forestry, effective April 1, 1998. He also expressed his gratitude to Emmett Thompson for his superlative leadership of the School of Forestry since its inception.

Two other deans searched as still underway and should be completed this Spring. Questions regarding those searched can be directed to Provost Parks.

President Muse said that the current legislative scene in Montgomery is "very confusing". The Council of Presidents for all the state's universities presented its request to the Legislature through the Alabama Commission on Higher Education. The Council requested two major considerations. One was for the Legislature to leave in our budgets the savings that we will generate when the Retirement System of Alabama adjusts its contribution rate next year from 9.66% to 4.03% of employees' salaries. The Council's best determination is that will generate a savings (windfall) of about $8 million for Auburn. At this point, it appears that the House has given every indication that it will leave the RSA's savings in our budgets. Secondly, the Council asked for an increase of 8% in our appropriations over the amount we were receiving in 1997-1998. The likelihood that we will get an 8.5% increase is rather slim, but the case the Council made was appropriate and one that had considerable validity especially when we have lost 16% in our state funding over the last three years (and considering inflation). The House Ways and Means Committee has as a part of its budget an increase of approximately 4%. The Council therefore took the position that we want to retain the RSA's monies, and that whatever increase comes from the Legislature, those funds will be allocated to each institution on the same percentage increase. There was a concession on the part of Troy State, Dothan, and Troy State, Montgomery (they are the lowest on the "equity totem pole"), for adjustments that will bring them closer to the average for the state. That would result in a relatively small amount of money because the enrollment at those two campuses is low.

The Council of Presidents had communicated their requests in writing, with support from all the Presidents. However, one institution is holding up the process by arguing for additional monies. The issue that is producing this type of anguish is discussion by the Legislature to mandate an 8.5% salary increase for all employees in higher education. The Council is supportive of a strong increase in compensation for all of our employees, but a mandated increase for higher education would produce a number of problems. This is what has happened for K-12 teachers and employees in junior colleges. The problem for us is that if we spent all of the windfall money plus the 4% appropriated by the Legislature, it still would not equal the money needed for an 8.5% increase in salaries. For Auburn, we would need an additional $1.5 million to meet that 8.5% increase.

Secondly, according to the RSA consultants, the RSA contribution that has been targeted at 4.03% for next fall will increase to 6.25% in 1999-2000 if everyone gets an 8.5% salary increase. If we spent all of the $8 million on salary increases, we wouldn't have $3 million left to pay for the increased contributions we have to make to RSA.

Third, we are not like K-12 or junior colleges. We have traditionally attempted to measure and reward our performance; if we have an 8.5% mandated increase, there is no room for merit increase. The Legislature has traditionally allowed universities to administer their own salary policies rather than the Legislature mandating raises.

The House Ways and Means Committee is still discussing the issue of a 8.5% mandated salary increase. If there is no mandate, each institution could probably live with the current situation. The Council would prefer to be in a position where the RSA money plus state appropriations would allow for an 8.5% salary increase and still provide a little leeway for us to plan on an increase in the RSA contribution next year and provide some relief to operating expense categories (which have not been adjusted for many years). But much of the Legislature wants to take credit for giving employees an 8.5% salary increase.

R. Gandy (Physics) asked how the proposed tuition increase will factor into the situation. President Muse said tuition dollars would have to be used if there is a mandated 8.5% salary increase. The plan that was presented to and endorsed by the Board last summer targeted improvement of employee compensation. The plan had three "prongs": (1) raise tuition over a five-year period up to the Southeastern average; (2) raise the percentage of our students paying out-of-state tuition to 25% (this should take about five years); (3) reallocate on an annual basis 1% of our budget to wither salaries or a higher identified goal.

G. Howze thought that if the tuition increase is approved, it would result in approximately $1.5 million.

The plan that (we) followed was specifically on target with what was proposed to the Board last Summer. (We) came back to the Board in January because that is a logical time to increase tuition. The proposal in January was very consistent with what was proposed in the Summer. In regard to the five-year plan for tuition increases, the Board decided that they would not act on it until they have seen what decisions were made relative to program review. (We) have been on schedule for program review as previously outlined. By March 15, 1998, decisions will be made about those programs that did not meet the viability standards.

D. Norris (Management) asked if we will able to satisfy the Board if there are sufficient program cuts that get us "back on track" with the tuition increase proposal. President Muse felt confident that he and Provost Parks would make the best case they could to the Board, and that they will look carefully at those programs that are under review. They will insist that a program has a strong chance of becoming viable or else a decision will be made to phase that program out.

T. Carey (History) asked if the Board thought that program cuts would result in financial savings because there are some programs that, if cut, would not result in savings. President Muse said that the examples and information presented to the Board last July demonstrated that any cost savings would take many years to accumulate. No immediate windfall that will incur even if programs are terminated. Other considerations include the number of tenured faculty in an area. Whatever is decided about program cuts, we still need to be concerned with productivity and efficiency.

J. Marion said that the presentation at the July Board meeting was very straight-forward, effective, and tied to the long-term future. Also, tuition increase was discussed as well as different aspects of the budget and where Auburn is going. Marion asked President Muse if he had received any feedback (prior to the January Board meeting) as to whether that was a good approach. President Muse said that the July presentation, the recommendations were unanimously accepted by the Board. The feedback since then from individual Board members was that we had in place a carefully laid-out plan to deal with the current problems as effectively as possible. He did not anticipate what happened at the January meeting.

C. Bailey (Steering Committee) asked about the establishment of a "University Club" that was mentioned in the newspaper, and how it will give the University 5% of its gross revenues. Bailey referred to a study that the Administration asked for regarding auxiliary units and what percentage of their profits they should contribute to the General Fund. He thought that an outside firm had been retained to study what SEC universities were doing. President Muse did not know if Don Large's work on this matter was yet complete, and did not have anything to report. Auburn had been approached by a private organization called the University Club Group, that has built and operated golf courses on a number of other universities. The Group established relationships with each university such that golf teams could use the courses as their home course. Memberships are then sold to individuals associated with the university. In return for use of the university's name and an alumni list, the Group pays 5%; this should amount to approximately $250,000. The plan is to put that money into the newly created Employees' Dependent Children Scholarship Fund. No University money has been or will be invested in this facility.

OLD BUSINESS:

A. Calenders and Schedules Committee Proposal: Sadik Tuzun

Tuzun thanked the members of the Committee for their diligent work on creating calenders for the semester transition and the first semester calender. He also thanked Chetan Sankar, Christine Curtis, the Transition Committee, and the Academic Standards Committee for their help.

The calender for 1999-2000 that the Senate had tentatively approved at the last meeting was rejected because too many people objected to Summer 2000 not having an exam week. Two alternatives were provided with the agenda for the current meeting. The Academic Standards Committee unanimously approved of "Alternative II". The motion to accept Alternative II carried by voice vote. In this calender, the following Saturdays will be made available for laboratory classes to complete their schedules: June 6, July 8, July 15, July 22, July 29, August 5. Lab periods will be from 8:30-11: 30 a.m. or 1:00-4:00 p.m.

The proposed calender for 2000-2001 was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. Tuzun assured the Senate that this would be the only time a semester would have less than 75 days (Fall 2000). The motion to accept this calender carried by voice vote.

Finally, Tuzun presented a proposed calender for 2001-2002, which was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. Each regular semester has 75 days. The Summer semester will be 50 days long, with two 25-day sections.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. Student Financial Aid Committee: Carol Corsby, Chair

A handout was provided at the meeting entitled "Report to AU Senate Concerning Activities of the AU Student Financial Aid Committee" (see attached). Corsby discussed the topics in the handout. Traditionally, the Financial Aid Committee has dealt with the awarding of academic scholarships and appeals regarding academic and athletic scholarships. The recommendation to change the name to University Scholarship Committee was made because the Committee does not oversee financial aid. The recommendation to adopt a mission statement is, in part, directed at dealing with past problems of not awarding all available scholarship monies. President Muse had not yet made a statement about the recommendations.

J. Weese (Senate Secretary-elect) asked if those students with ACT scores of 29 and higher were offered scholarships without their applying. Corsby said that these were students who have already been accepted to Auburn. They had been awarded scholarships based on their ACT scores.

J. Marion (Dean, College of Agriculture) commended the efforts of the Committee. He said that the awarding of scholarships has been a problem in the College of Agriculture for the past ten years. He also said that the University's good faculty will tend to stay here if they have good students.

A. Dunlop (English) asked about need-based scholarships. Susan Allen said that there are approximately 100 different need-based scholarships at Auburn. One of the problems in the past is that if there is not a student who demonstrates financial need and meets the other criteria, those scholarships went unawarded. The Committee wants to create stipulations in the agreements that waive the criteria if no one meets them so that those monies can be awarded. Corsby pointed out that there are several unusual scholarships available at Auburn, and may not be awarded because the criteria are so selective.

B. Gladden (Health & Human Performance) asked how our current plan for National Merit scholarships compares to other schools, such as Florida State. Allen said University of Alabama offers its National Merit finalists and a laptop computer and tuition scholarship. U of A offers a full-ride scholarship. However, Auburn has a smaller endowment base than U of A, so at this time we are not able to compete at the same level. The Committee is now taking initiatives that will allow for "full-ride" scholarships to be offered in December. That scholarship will stand whether or not the National Merit semi-finalists are named as finalists. Other institutions reward the finalists after they are named finalists.

Susan Allen talked about Merit Monday on February 16, 1998. The school had invited those students who have been offered scholarships to visit the campus. The morning will be spent with academic representatives from all the schools and colleges. In the afternoon, the students will attend a lecture and a lab class. They will also go through Honors Village and have a campus tour.

B. Academic Standards: Scottedward Hodel, Chair

Information regarding the definition of a credit hour was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. Hodel first thanked the members of the Academic Standards Committee for their work.

The Curriculum Committee has the task of approving all new proposed curricula. The outline provided recommendations to the Curriculum Committee on the number of credit hours allowed for laboratories, practica, studios and internships, [etc.], and the grading of internships. Hodel discussed the policy provided, including background, the typical workload, types of instruction, definition proposals, policy intent/exceptions, examples, and grading of internships. The examples that are presented in the policy were all approved by the Curriculum Committee.

The motion to approve the policy carried by voice vote.

RESOLUTIONS:

Rules Committee - Resolution to Expand the Curriculum Committee: Herb Rotfeld

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

Currently, Forestry, Education, and Vet Med do not have voting members. Over the last five years, Business and Human Science did not have voting members at various times. In transition, this is the only committee that reviews all programs and course and that is dominated by faculty. The Resolution would allow for representation from each college and school. It had originally been proposed by Carol Daron and other members of the Curriculum Committee several years ago. John Grover, Christine Curtis, Paul Parks, Glenn Howze, the Rules Committee, and members of the Curriculum Committee have all encouraged and approve of this change.

The motion to adopt the Resolution carried by voice vote.

B. Faculty Welfare Committee - Resolution on the Proposed Faculty Workload Policy: Kira Bowen, Chair

A copy of the Resolution was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. A copy of the "Faculty Workload Policy Statement" was provided at the meeting (see attached).

The Faculty Workload Policy was developed by some of the Deans, mostly in response to the current political climate and the fact that there is a state mandate to develop a workload policy. It is also an attempt to alert the public to what the faculty does.

If it is going to be required by the state or ACHE that faculty workload is to be reported and summarized, then Auburn should have its own instrument in place to do this. As a land grant university, Auburn is unique among the institutions of higher education in Alabama. There are examples of other universities that were able to avoid a uniform workload policy instituted across the state because they already had one in place.

The Faculty Welfare Committee did not feel it was adequate to develop and implement the Faculty Workload Policy, and the Resolution addresses this.

L. Evans (Dean of Pharmacy) applauded some of the concepts in the Resolution, but felt that there was some background information that should be provided to the Senate. He and Gordon Bond had offered the "Auburn University Faculty Workload Statement" in response to an external threats. It was created with a very short deadline, and was an attempt to implement something that would provide the outside world some accountability for what we do as faculty and hopefully help people understand what the faculty does. Evans was concerned with some of the comments in the Resolution that are inaccurate. The policy is not an evaluation document; it is a document that provides accountability for people outside the University as to what the Faculty does. Furthermore, there is a fair amount of flexibility in the document with the full intent that the Policy be conducted at the unit level. Unfortunately, many other institutions across the country have workload policies that are define workload on the basis of credit hours taught and do not give faculty any recognition for other responsibilities. Evans did not object to moving towards resolving some of the concerns expressed by the Faculty Welfare Committee, but urged that it be done quickly in light of the threat of a state mandate.

Chair Swanson clarified that if the Resolution is approved, an ad hoc committee will be established to look at the Policy. If the Resolution is rejected, the Policy will be further considered by the Faculty Welfare Committee. Bowen said that there were disagreements among the Committee members as to what the wording should be for the Resolution.

Mary Boudreaux (Pathobiology), a member of the Faculty Welfare Committee, had voted against presenting the Resolution to the Senate. She felt that Points 1 and 6 of the Resolution were a problem, objecting to the idea of keeping clock hours as part of workload documentation. She wanted those two points stricken from the Resolution. Glenn Howze said that the six items in the Resolution were only guidelines; other Senators pointed out that the wording said those guidelines were to be adhered to. Chair Swanson said that (we) proposed these guidelines to the ad hoc committee, but that committee would have their own options as to how it reports.

J. Grover (Immediate Past Senate Chair) found the Policy to be very confusing, when he found that time effort would be "minutia-ed down to one-ten thousandth in your multiples", he lost interest in being accounted for on that scale. He felt it was appropriate to revisit the existing Policy.

G. Hill (Chemistry) felt that there should be specific examples in any future rewrites, as there are none in the current document.

J. Heilman related some background information about what Gordon Bond brought to the Policy. Bond had been a very strong advocate of the interests of the Faculty. While the document was being worked on, Bond was very much aware of the accountability practices that were being brought to bear on the academy in general in the U.S.. He knew that workload policies were being legislated elsewhere and saw the pressures coming to Alabama. Bond worked with Dean Evans to develop a framework. The intent was to establish limits to what faculty members would reasonably have to do. In regard to the points of the Resolution, Heilman said that in some instances it is good to get away from clock hours. He agreed that having specific examples would be extremely productive. He felt that in the interest of moving forward, the proposed policy should be returned to President Muse for his review.

M. Boudreaux said that the Faculty Welfare Committee like the policy and thought it was well written. The Committee kept having problems with the reporting aspect, and agreed that specific examples would help.

T. Carey was also confused with the proposed computing of workloads. He understood that there are pressures to establish a Workload Policy, but was wary of passing on such an important document in haste and without full consideration.

L. Evans reminded the Senate that there is already a law requiring the establishment of a Workload Policy, and that it is now only a matter of someone outside the University implementing a system. He stated that, "ACHE has no clue about how to do this," and that we should try to provide some leadership and make a policy we can live with. In terms of the mechanics of record-keeping, there is a fair amount of flexibility in the proposed policy. He said he would be happy to present examples from different units if the issue could be resolved without a long delay

G. Howze said that one of the concerns of those people who voted to send the issue to an ad hoc committee was that there should be some representation from deans and other administrators on the Committee. If an ad hoc committee is created with faculty and administrative members, the process can move quickly.

R. Henderson (Small Animal) asked if this document will result in the replacement of or an addition to something we already have. He said (we) presently do an annual accounting of faculty activities; it is very detailed and time-consuming. Provost Parks said that has not been very effective and hoped the Faculty Workload Policy would supersede that. Henderson said he would appreciate a promise in that regard, but was not granted one.

J. Raymond (Senate Secretary) pointed out that the Senate could reject the Resolution, but still send the issue to an ad hoc committee.

C. Bailey offered a friendly amendment to replace the word "adhere" with "consider". Bowen accepted the friendly amendment.

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

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

Respectfully submitted,

(Signed)

Jennie Raymond, Senate Secretary