Minutes

AUBURN UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

10 March 1998

Broun Hall Auditorium

ABSENT: W. Abner, A. Cook, C. Dupree, R. Evans, Jr., S. Finn-Bodner, J. Grover, R. Jaeger, T. Love, A. Magg, M. Malloy, M. Melancon, L. Myers, J. Neidigh, J. Novak, C. Pitts, T. Powe, H. Rotfeld, F. Smith, A. Tarrer, E. Thompson, H. Tippur, G. Watkins, D. Wilson.

ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): W. Brewer (M. Williams), R. Burgess (D. Rehm), L. Colquit (C. Hudson), B. DeMent (W. Miller), F. Lawing (L. Enloe), C. LeNoir (H. Burdg), P. Popovich (L. Bell), R. Ripley (M. Klemm), D. Shannon (D. Promis), H. Thomas (S. Adanur).

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A. Student Government Association: Katie Moorehead

Invitations for the March 12, 1998 "Excellence in Advising Awards" reception were distributed at the meeting. The purpose of the reception was to honor the schools that have excellence in their current advising programs. The winners to be honored at the reception are the schools of Liberal Arts, Agriculture, and Pharmacy. The SGA Senate has been looking for a way to have interaction with the Faculty Senate, and hoped that the reception would encourage that.

B. President's office: Provost Paul Parks

The educational budget came out of the House a few days before the current meeting. It has also gone through the Finance and Taxation Committee (F & T) of the state Senate. There had been no changes to the House's bill after coming out of F & T, which means that there should be a 4.64% increase over lasts years budget as it now stands in the Senate. Hank Sanders (Chair, F & T) planned to bring the education budget to the state Senate floor on March 11, 1998. Buddy Mitchell felt that there was a good chance that the bill would pass through the state Senate with the 4.64% increase, with some other changes. The last day of the Legislative Session would be April 27, 1998.

There are three bond issues for this Session. Governor James has introduced a general purpose bond issue of $1 billion, with significant funding for four-year institutions in that bond issue (approximately $294 million). This bond would be for major renovations for facilities. Paul Hubbard is opposed to this bond issue primarily because of the concern that the cost of retiring those bonds over the next several years will have a significant impact on funding for other types of projects within the legislative process.

The Lieutenant Governor has also proposed a bond issue for roughly $5 billion, with approximately $92 million for four-year institutions. This bond issue is also for capital projects.

The Agricultural Economic Development bond issue would provide funds for Agriculture, Forestry, Veterinary Medicine facilities within the University. It would also build a Diagnostic Lab on our Veterinary campus that would be operated by the Department of Agriculture and Industry. This bond issue had passed out of the House unanimously. At the time of the current meeting, the bond issue was in the Economic Expansion and Trade Committee of the state Senate. Chair Wayne Freeman committed that the bill would come out of the Committee and be considered by the full Senate. There is a good chance that the bond issue would pass, and there would be the requirement that it be voted on as a Constitutional amendment.

Provost Parks complimented Drew Clark for his exemplary chairing of the Program Review and Assessment Committee. The Committee was close to concluding its review of those programs that did not meet the 75% viability standards mark. The Committee would be submitting its findings to Provost Parks and President Muse, and to the Board of Trustees for their consideration on the tuition increase. Parks and Muse would be sharing their recommendations with the Faculty Senate leadership.

C. Bailey (Steering Committee) asked if the Senate leadership would have input into Parks' and Muse's final decision. Provost Parks said that (they) would have to keep in mind the Committee's recommendations, and get the necessary information to present to the Board to give them a clear idea what options are available. He said every possible consideration would be given to the inputs of the Senate leadership.

D. Himelrick (Horticulture) asked what percentage increase the two-year institutions would receive with the new budget; Provost Parks did not have that information. Also, Himelrick wanted to know about salary increases in the coming year if the 4.64% was approved. The 4.64% increase would generate approximately $8.1 million for Auburn University. The reduction in the RSA annual payments from 9.6% to 4.3% would generate an additional $8 million. With all four divisions of AU, it would cost approximately $1.9 million to give a 1% salary increase. Therefore, there might be enough money to have 8.5% salary increase. However, the problem is that if every institution in Alabama gives an 8.5% salary increase, the payments for the RSA in the following year will jump from 4.3% to 6.85% ($2.5 million). Other sources of funds will have to be considered for such a salary increase.

G. Howze (Chair-elect) talked about the possibility of adding $5 million to the higher education budget from the floor of the state Senate. He said that for those people who are interested in contacting their state Senators, please do not do so as a representative of Auburn University.

L. Katainen (Foreign Languages & Literature) asked about what types of cuts would be made in terms of Program Review. Provost Parks had not seen the report, and wanted to see all the Committee's recommendations before giving any more information.

C. Senate Chair: Gary Swanson

The presidents of Alabama's four-year institutions had proposed to the Legislature one of the bond issues. They had also proposed to leave the RSA money alone and let the universities handle it by themselves. Another proposal was to take one-third of the new General Education Trust Fund Money and give it to higher education, but that has not happened (K-12 is still receiving more than two-thirds of those monies). If the $500 million bond issue passes, $22.6 million would come to Auburn University. Provost Parks said there was an agreement among the presidents to use a formal approach to those funds, and that the amount may be closer to $20 million.

Chair Swanson was disappointed that he had received very few examples from the faculty of how their situations have changed since Governor James' 7.6% cut in funding. Swanson wanted to present some of these stories to the Board at the April 3, 1998 meeting.

The search committee for replacing Provost Parks had not yet been formed, because of the interference of two of the Board of Trustees. Those members wanted to delay the formation of such a committee until after the next Board meeting.

The Committee List had been distributed, and Chair Swanson asked that any errors be reported to himself or Secretary Raymond.

The election of new Senate officers will take place at the General Faculty meeting on April 14, 1998. A list of nominees will be available in the AU Report.

G. Howze said that Bob Drakeford is the current Chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee; Ralph Mirarchi will be chair next year. Also, Howze urged everyone interested in the full report from the Program Review and Assessment Committee to attend the Board meeting on April 3.

OLD BUSINESS:

A. Student Financial Aid Committee: Carole Corsby

A proposed mission statement for the Committee (as renamed the "University Scholarship Committee") was provided with the agenda for the current meeting.

A. Dunlop (English) read the following statement:

"Scholarship programs have at least two very important functions. One is to enable the University to attract the most academically-accomplished students to our campus. Another is to enable lower-income students who meet or exceed our requirements to pursue a college education. The proposed mission statement of the Scholarship Committee seems dedicated primarily to the first function. We must be aware, especially as the University raises tuition in the coming years, of the danger of the Auburn degree becoming increasingly a prerogative and mark of the middle class. If education is to function as an equalizer in our nominally-classless democracy, a university education must be a realistic aspiration for all who have the interest and ability to attain it regardless of economic background. Though most need-based scholarships are probably federally-funded, I urge the Scholarship Committee to affirm publicly in its mission statement and in its programs Auburn's commitment to serving the state's lower income citizens.

Therefore, as a friendly, if acceptable, amendment to the Committee's mission statement, I propose that in the first of the listed goals, the phrase 'all academically talented students' be changed to read 'both academically talented students and students eligible for admission who demonstrate financial need'".

C. Bailey seconded the friendly amendment; Corsby accepted the friendly amendment.

R. Gandy (Physics) had served on the Financial Aid Committee, and supported the sentiment of Dunlop's comment. But the financial aid portion is handled totally separately from the Scholarship Committee. He felt that this would be a "tremendous burden to the Committee". Corsby said that things on the Committee had changed dramatically this year, and felt that the Committee would gladly accept the responsibility if it will help to facilitate the goals of reaching as many possible students and do the best job with scholarships at Auburn. She did not feel it would be an overwhelming burden, but the issue of confidentiality would have to be addressed.

B. Gladden (Health & Human Performance) asked if the same "pot of money" was to be used for academically talented students and those with financial need. Corsby said that would depend on the endowments, as some are very specific. Gandy said that most financial aid is federally financed, whereas academic scholarships are Auburn financed. Gladden asked where the greatest need currently lies. Corsby felt that Auburn is not competing on any level at this point, even in Alabama. She also felt that the need-based question was not so pertinent until tuition started to increase.

J. Weese (Secretary-elect) said that some departmental committees receive information on financial need from financial aid representatives. She felt that (we) really should look at financial need because there are staff members who cannot afford to send their children to the University.

R. Henderson (Small Animal) asked if the mission statement is an attempt to establish a charge for the Committee. Corsby said that the Faculty Handbook has a charge for the Financial Aid Committee. Henderson asked how far academic scholarships go, and if financial need is under the purview of this Committee. Corsby said the vast majority of the Committee's work has been with scholarships. J. Raymond (Secretary) pointed out that according to the Faculty Handbook, the Director of Student Financial Aid is a member of this Committee.

B. Gladden thought that financial need-based scholarships may be better dealt with by another committee.

R. Middleton (Counseling & Counseling Psychology) felt it was a wrong assumption to make that academically-talented and need-based scholarships will comprise two separate populations. She did not see the friendly amendment as opposing what the Committee is trying to accomplish.

K. Fields (Past Senate Chair) read from the Faculty Handbook: "The Student Financial Aid Committee shall consist of the Bursar and the Director of Student Financial Aid, six faculty members, and four students. The Committee shall make scholarship recommendations to the President." Fields felt the mission statement would tell the Committee how to go about that charge. Corsby said the primary reason the Committee wanted to make a mission statement was because (they) felt the charge in the Faculty Handbook "left a lot to be desired".

Much discussion ensued as to whether to vote on the mission statement as amended, or as it was originally presented to the Senate.

A. Dunlop felt it was important that the Committee, Senate, and University go on record in support of need-based scholarships, as scholarship information and availability will be made public and may affect prospective students' decisions.

The motion to accept the amended mission statement carried by voice vote.

B. A & P representation on University Committees: Kent Fields

Proposed changes to the Faculty Handbook regarding A & P representation were provided with the agenda for the current meeting. There are recommended changes to 15 of the 33 University Committees, plus some "general verbiage". In some cases, the number of faculty is being reduced by one and a member of A & P is added, so that the size of the committee does not change.

T. Carey (History) asked why these changes need to occur. Chair Swanson said that before the Senate Constitution was rewritten, there was no A & P Assembly; the A & P members were under the umbrella of "faculty". As such, they served on committees as regular faculty did. Once the Constitution was rewritten, an A & P category was created, but there was no stipulation for their representation on University Committees. Fields said that until approximately three years ago, there were A & P members in the Senate. At that time, the Board approved the A & P Assembly, with their own group representing the interests of those people. For University Committees, there needs to be representation for all groups involved. Swanson pointed out that the A & P members that serve on University Committees will be nominated by the A & P Assembly, just as faculty members are nominated by the Rules Committee. Fields noted that in those cases where faculty or A & P can serve, the A & P Assembly will send its nominations to the Rules Committee.

L. Katainen asked what types of positions are included in the A & P. Fields said that most people in Housing are A & P. Other A & P members are found in the Registrar's Office and the Athletic Department. Additionally, DUC and Telecommunications are included.

B. Gladden asked if any of the University Committees have any legal guidelines, such as with the Review of Human Subjects Board. Swanson said that anyone serving on that Committee has to go through a long list of qualifications, regardless of whether they are A & P or faculty. The same is the case with the Radiological Safety Committee. Swanson said that positions on some committees are difficult to fill because of the strict guidelines, and in those situations, having the option of faculty or A & P representation would be helpful.

C. Hudson (Finance) asked why it is necessary to reduce the faculty rather than just adding A & P. Fields said that sometimes these committees are very large and are nearly at the point of being difficult to control. The faculty still represents a significant presence on the University Committees.

R. Kunkel (Dean, College of Education) asked if "faculty" referred to University Senate representation, or if it means specifically faculty. If faculty is referred to, there are many members of the University Senate who could not fill those seats. Fields said that all faculty are included, not just selected Senators. The point is to have appropriate representation on all University Committees by all groups involved. For example, "staff members" have been added where there is no representation for staff.

The motion to approve the proposed changes was accepted by voice vote. The changes will be forwarded to the Handbook Committee for the final action.

NEW BUSINESS:

(The presentation on Transfer Students from AUM was not made at the current meeting.)

Administrator Evaluation Committee: Glenn Howze

The "Interim Report of the Administrator Evaluation Committee" was distributed at the current meeting (see attached).

The Administrator Evaluation questionnaire has been distributed to each faculty member every year for several years, in which administrators at all levels are to be evaluated. There has always been very low participation in the process, and the Spring General Faculty Meeting saw discussion of how to deal with the process. Howze went into detail on the Interim Report, which included the system currently in use at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Provost Parks has agreed to ask the Council of Deans to select one or two deans to meet with the Administrator Evaluation Committee, as well as some department heads. The Committee would review the evaluation process with this group, get their input, and bring the results back to the Senate in April or May.

B. Felkey (Pharmacy Care Systems) asked how the proposed system will address the identified problems. Howze felt that participation would increase drastically; for example, he felt department head evaluations would approach 100%. Also, the results would be made known to the faculty. Howze felt that this formal evaluation would have some effect on retention, promotion, and merit.

T. Smith (Human Development & Family Studies) saw how the system would work in the academic structure, but wondered how it would apply to administrators who are not in the "Provost tree". Howze said that the faculty's primary interests are probably with the academic administrators. If there is a situation where not all the faculty are familiar with the administrator, the evaluation may be directed toward those faculty who are familiar with that particular administrator.

L. Katainen asked what a "personal activity report" is. Howze said a personal activity report tells what a person has done in the previous year, and that members of the College of Agriculture are required to do them annually. Katainen also asked what some of the results have been from the VPI evaluations, and how effective the new procedures might be. Ralph Mirarchi (Zoology & Wildlife) said he originally got the VPI information two years ago after he had heard many positive reports from people at that institution.

T. Carey asked about the anonymity of the evaluators; some people may not feel free to give honest evaluations. Howze hoped that would not be a problem, and that it should not be. If the Committee found administrators that were vindictive, that could be made known and be dealt with.

G. Halpin (Steering Committee) thought that a large part of the failure to complete the evaluations is that junior faculty members have an underlying fear that they will somehow be identified. Halpin felt that there is greater potential for this to happen with the proposed system, and participation will continue to be a problem. He was also concerned with objectivity. Review teams might be chosen by senior administrators so that evaluations of particular individuals are essentially biased. Howze said the faculty would choose its own representatives, and the administrator would appoint the outside party to chair the team. Mirarchi said that in terms of intimidation, those faculty representatives should be tenured faculty. There is a standardized evaluation form, and there should be no way of tracing the evaluators. The team encourages all the faculty to respond, which should get the response rate above a minimum goal of 60% and result in an unbiased response.

RESOLUTIONS:

A. Resolution from the Steering Committee for President to Expedite Formation of Provost Search Committee: Gary Swanson

The Resolution was provided with the agenda for the current meeting.

A. Dunlop wanted to know if the Resolution would be asking the President to transgress the requests of the two Board members who oppose the immediate formation of a search committee; Swanson said that the intent of the Resolution is to start the search as soon as possible. Swanson said (we) do not know the basis for the Board members' requests.

The Resolution was passed by voice vote.

B. Resolution to Recognize and Acknowledge Provost Paul Parks: Gary Swanson

The Resolution was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. The Resolution was

passed by voice vote, and the Senate applauded Provost Parks for his many years of fine service to the University.

C. Resolution from the Steering Committee regarding House Bill 300: Stan Gardiner, AAUP

A copy of the Resolution was distributed at the current meeting (see attached). House Bill 300 changes how trustees are selected, how long they serve, and who can serve.

The Resolution is a result of a meeting between several AAUP board members and Senator Little regarding concerns with HB 300 and possible changes. Gardiner discussed the concerns and suggested revisions as outlined in the Resolution. One point he made was that the National Commission on College and University Trustee Selection, in its 1980 report, suggested that trustee terms be made as short as possible to maintain trustee effectiveness.

C. Bailey had attended the meeting with Senator Little. Bailey thought it was important to note the reason (we) are not trying to push forward rapidly with this is because Senator Little felt there was little to no chance HB 300 would be acted upon during the current legislative session. Action would likely be taken in the next session, and in the form of revising the procedure for selecting members of the Board of Trustees. Having the sense of the Faculty Senate would be an "important piece of ammunition".

Problems and questions can be directed to the Executive Committee of the AAUP.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Jennie Raymond, Senate Secretary