Minutes

AUBURN UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

7 April 1998

Broun Hall Auditorium

ABSENT: W. Abner, T. Brower, R. Burgess, J. Cherry, C. Dupree, R. Evans, Jr., R. Henderson, G. Hill, R. Jaeger, M. Kraska, F. Lawing, C. LeNoir, T. Love, A. Magg, J. Marion, E. Moran, C. Moriarty, L. Myers, G. Plasketes, T. Powe, D. Shannon, A. Tarrer, H. Thomas, E. Thompson.

ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): K. Alley (P. Starr), S. Bentley (Y. Kozlowski), L. Colquit (C. Hudson), J. Hung (A. Hodel), T. Smith (C. Smith), S. Tuzun (J. Murphy).

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A. President's Office: William V. Muse

President Muse announced that he would be giving his Spring State of the University Address at the General Faculty meeting.

At the recent Board of Trustees meeting, President Muse gave a presentation in an attempt to convince the Board that measures that had been taken over the last few years to adjust to the funding shortfalls that (we) have experienced, were significant. Also, we had put a plan in place that would enable us address our problems in a meaningful way over the next five years. Since last July, the goals that we have established are to bring compensation up to a more competitive level, to make more significant progress in reducing our list of deferred maintenance projects, and to enhance selected academic programs. The plan that we presented to achieve these goals included (1) increased tuition revenue, (2) a rigorous review of non-viable programs (leading to a decision to either close those programs, bring them up to standards of viability, or to merge them with similar programs), and (3) a plan for reallocation of resources equal to 1-2% of our budget annually toward areas of higher priority.

Provost Parks also presented to the Board the results of the review of non-viable programs that had been conducted by a faculty committee headed by Drew Clark (English). Both Parks and Muse were impressed by the work of this committee, and indicated to the Board that they planned to implement its recommendations. Out of the 41 programs that had been reviewed, 10 will be eliminated, 17 would be merged with existing programs.

The Board did agree to raise tuition by 7.6%, which was a critical step in the long-term plan of increasing revenue.

The Board concluded that the plan that is in place (one that the Board had endorsed last July) did not go "far enough nor fast enough" to address the problems that we have identified. Hence, the Board established a Commission to Review the Role of the University in the 21st Century. The Commission calls for 10 members; five elected by the Board and five to be appointed by the President. Five Trustees were elected to the Commission (Robert Lowder, W. James Samford, Paul Spina, Jack Venable, and Edward Richardson). President Muse's appointees will include Provost Paul Parks, Executive Vice President Don Large, Vice Chancellor Roger Ritvo (AUM), and two members of the Auburn University Faculty (to be nominated by the University Senate). The Commission will begin its deliberations in the following week, and will examine whether major changes in the University's role and/or its organizational structure are needed in order to achieve the goals that have been identified. The Commission will make a report at the September Board of Trustees meeting. While President Muse was disappointed that the plan in place was deemed to be inadequate by the Board, it is his obligation to work with the Board and the Commission in carrying out this task.

The second major issue addressed by the Board was the search for a new Provost. The Board directed President Muse to delay that search indefinitely, pending the completion of the work of the Role Commission. The Board also asked that other searches for top administrators be put on hold wherever possible. Provost Parks has agreed to continue as Provost for the next year if needed. President Muse appreciated Parks' willingness to do so and to continue to provide leadership for the University in this very important position for the indefinite future. Muse and Parks are assessing the other searches that are under way to determine what actions need to be taken, and they will soon be announcing their decisions.

President Muse expressed his appreciation to Gary Swanson for his leadership of the University Senate over the past year. Swanson has spoken with a loud and clear voice about the needs and concerns of the Faculty. President Muse felt that everyone should extend deep gratitude for Swanson's extensive and effective work.

J. Dane (Agronomy & Soils) asked about the decision of the Board to construct an art museum, and if it could be placed outside of the Arboretum rather than inside. President Muse said that the decisions about the museum will be made by the architects, landscape consultants, and the committee that will be formed to work on the project. Although it would be desirable to put the museum in the Arboretum extension, there is still the possibility that it will go inside the Arboretum.

J. Novak (Agricultural Economics) asked if the issue would go to the Campus Planning Committee. President Muse suspected that the museum plans would eventually go through that committee in the process of being approved by the Board.

J. Novak also asked what the goals were that had been set forth by the Board. President Muse said that the plan had been presented to and approved by the Board in July 1997. The goals were to (1) bring Faculty salaries up to 95% of the regional average within five years; (2) raise spending for deferred maintenance up to $10 million per year; and (3) 1-2% reallocation of funds to be targeted at (in future years) enhancing programs on a competitive basis (this year the reallocation will go toward salary enhancement).

C. Graham (Plainsman) asked about the search for a new dean for the College of Liberal Arts. President Muse said that the Board specifically directed that, wherever possible, dean searched be suspended. Muse felt that the Liberal Arts dean search would likely be suspended.

President Muse said that there was some good news at the recent Board of Trustees meeting. The University received a $3 million gift from Albert and Jewel Smith for the art museum. The total funding for this project is up to $5.2 million, which should be adequate for the construction of the building as well as provide some endowments for its operations.

B. Educational Enhancement Day - Paula Backscheider

As is one of the activities associated with the transition from quarter to semester systems that will be a way to recognize Auburn's innovative and excellent teachers, the Provost's Educational Enhancement Day will be on May 14, 1998. Faculty members from all the colleges who have been nominated and selected will present their innovative teaching methods for the classroom and laboratories. Backsheider encouraged the Faculty to nominate people who are doing creative and excellent teaching, and whose methods might make us all enhance the classroom experience for the students. The Committee is especially interested in methods used for large lecture classes, particularly those methods that are interactive, involve groups, peer learning, or other ways that give students a more individual experience. The deadline for nominations is April 9, 1998.

C. Senate Chair: Gary Swanson

The Faculty Workload Policy Committee will be chaired by Mary Boudreaux. Questions and input regarding the Workload Policy should be directed to her.

OLD BUSINESS:

Resolution on HB 300: Stan Gardiner

A copy of the Resolution was provided with the agenda for the current meeting; this version of the Resolution contained some changes from the original version that was presented to the Senate. The changes are concerned with AUM representation on the Screening Committee, the Final Selection Committee, and some non-voting Trustees. The AUM Senate also has a copy of the new Resolution and will be voting on it on April 10, 1998. The SGA Presidents at both Auburn and AUM also have copies of the Resolution.

The motion to accept the Resolution carried by voice vote.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. Academic Standards Committee: Scottedward Hodel, Chair

Hodel presented several issues that the Committee has been working on; a copy of each was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. The motion to change grade requirements in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures carried by voice vote. The motion to change the GPA requirements for all transfers into the Department of Interior Environments carried by voice vote.

A formal rewrite of Auburn's policy on academic warning and academic suspension was provided at the current meeting. This was related to the recommendations for changing the Student Information System (SIS), which would come on line in August 1998. The motion to change the academic warning and suspension policies, as well as to accept the recommended changes for the SIS, carried by voice vote.

B. Faculty Handbook Committee: Randy Pipes

Proposed changes to the Faculty Handbook were provided with the agenda for the current meeting. Pipes discussed the different changes.

The proposed changes to the Curriculum Committee had already been approved by the Senate. The changes to the Fraternities and Sororities Committee were proposed to correct typos and to include the National Pan-Hellenic Council. The name change from Student Financial Aid Committee for the University Scholarship Committee was proposed because this committee does not deal with financial aid. The "Awards" section of the Faculty Handbook was updated to reflect the current situation. The changes to the Graduate Faculty Membership had been approved by the Senate in 1995, but the changes were never put into the Faculty Handbook. Changes to the "Compensation" section were proposed to accurately reflect how faculty are currently being compensated. Finally, the Transit System statement was proposed to indicate that the University offers this service.

R. Mirarchi (Zoology & Wildlife) pointed out that the named Professorship in Wildlife Sciences is not mentioned in the proposed changes. Provost Parks said that professorship could be added to the list. Likewise, R. Gandy (Physics) mentioned the Carr Professor of Physics; Provost Parks said it, too, could be added to the list. T. Boosinger said that the College of Veterinary Medicine is initiating a search for a named Chair position which could also be added to the list.

C. Bailey (Steering Committee) suggested that proposed representation on the Curriculum Committee take into consideration that the current structure might change. In the event that "Clemsonitis" spreads, only four colleges might remain in Auburn. In this case, the number of faculty on this committee would decrease, which would be contrary to the spirit of the proposed changes. Pipes said that the proposed changes that were presented had already been approved by the Senate, but the Senate could change whatever action it has previously taken.

The motion to adopt the proposed changes to the Faculty Handbook carried by voice vote.

C. Program Review and Assessment Committee: Drew Clark

Last summer, Provost Parks identified a set of degree programs for review for possible elimination. These programs were identified by an objective criterion; these programs fell below 75% of the viability criterion set by the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE). The five-year period in question was the academic year 1991-92 through 1995-96. The viability standard set by ACHE is 7.0 graduates per year on average (baccalaureate program), 3.75 per year (masters program), and 2.25 per year (doctoral program). Forty-one programs were identified for this review. The deans were given the opportunity to state reasons for retention of targeted programs. For the most part, the Committee agreed with the recommendations of the deans'.

Clark acknowledged the members of the ad hoc Program Review and Assessment Committee: Arthur Chappelka, Patricia Duffy, Jim Harris, Michael Hein, Michael Moriarty, John Pritchett, Jack Rogers, Steve Silvern, Donna Sollie, and David Wilson. The Committee was appointed in January 1998, and was given the target deadline of March 15, 1998, to deliver its recommendations to Provost Parks. The recommendations were to retain 11 programs, eliminate 10, and merge 17 (with existing programs); for three programs, the decision was deferred.

Throughout its deliberations, the Committee was mindful of the need for all academic units to look at program quality and viability. The issue of program review and assessment is probably one that will continue for some time. (The Rules Committee had considered the need for a standing Review and Assessment Committee.) Clark thanked Provost Parks and Gary Swanson for their help in making sure faculty input was heard. The Committee also felt that looking at what other universities are doing in terms of program review and assessment would be valuable.

The Committee's recommendations are as follows:

(Insert charts here)

J. Grover (Immediate Past Senate Chair) asked if there was any observation about financial savings associated with the proposed changes. Clark said the Committee did not have time to gather nor process very detailed financial information.

B. Trimble (History, Steering Committee) asked if the Committee would be working with the new 21st Century Commission (Goal Commission) to coordinate on what are "reasonable" cuts to make. Clark hoped that would be the case, and that it would depend upon the Senate leadership, Provost Parks, and President Muse. Clark also hoped that such interaction would be constructive. Furthermore, Clark said that it is imperative that there be some faculty voice in the review of programs.

C. Bailey said that the Steering Committee had developed guidelines for the Committee that included factors such as uniqueness and relevance to the land-grant mission. Clark mentioned the criteria that the Steering Committee suggested: uniqueness, relevance to a land-grant university, level of service to other departments, impact on morale, extramural funding generated, quality of graduates and faculty, and a couple of others [sic]. The Committee looked at all those criteria as best they were able. At one of the Committee's earliest meetings, the members discussed which of those criteria would be most feasible to apply in the time allotted. "High importance" was placed on uniqueness and relevance to the university as well as a land-grant university. A moderate level of importance was placed on service to other departments. Relatively low importance was placed on the impact on faculty morale (recognizing that any cuts would result impact morale) and the amount of extramural funding generated. The quality of graduates and the faculty are as important but extremely difficult for a university-level committee to assess. Clark assured the Senate that each of the deans did a good job at presenting cases as to why certain programs should be maintained. The deans' recommendations were considered when the various criteria were being evaluated.

J. Dane asked what reaction the Board had to the Committee's recommendations. Provost Parks relayed that the Board appreciated what the Committee had done; the reception was basically positive. The Board did not feel that the Committee had done enough. Parks added that there was a concise rationale written for every one of the actions (taken by the Committee) that dealt with the other criteria, which he found to be very helpful.

D. Ad hoc Committee of Faculty Consulting: John Grover, Chair

A report of the University Senate ad hoc committee on the Faculty Consulting Policy was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. The report included a resolution ("Action" section).

D. Himelrick (Horticulture) asked what the definition of "quarter" was. Grover said that period referred to three months or an academic quarter; the Administration would have to determine the appropriate language. Himelrick pointed out that with international consulting, the leave period may be two weeks; he asked if such a long period might be unacceptable to the Board. Grover said that in a semester system two weeks would be permitted, and annual leave could be added on top of that. Grover also said that if a special need arises a person could go to the Provost to request an exception.

The motion to accept the resolution carried by voice vote.

E. Nominating Committee: John Grover, Chair

To nominees for Chair-elect of the Senate are Jo Heath and Rex Gandy. The nominees for Secretary-elect are Marcia Boosinger and Ralph Zee. Nominations would take place at the General Faculty meeting on April 14.

F. Nominations for the Rules Committee: Gary Swanson

There will be three technical vacancies in the Rules Committee. Nominees for the Rules Committee are (including the person who made the nomination): Renee Middleton, Counseling & Counseling Psychology (Conner Bailey); Sadik Tuzun, Plant Pathology (Jacob Dane); Alex Dunlop, English (Bill Trimble); Lewis Slaten, Consumer Affairs (Carl Hudson). Nominations will take place at the next Senate Meeting.

G. General Concern about Governance Issues

B. Trimble (History, Steering Committee) was concerned that (we) moved quickly through some of the events that happened from the last Board meeting. He was very much worried that there are some major governance issues that came up as a result of that meeting, and all of us need to be concerned with those issues.

G. Howze agreed that this is a very serious matter, and one that should have a lot of faculty discussion and input. He said that one of his first acts as the up-coming Senate Chair will be to organize a faculty forum to discuss this issue. He also wants to bring in some people from Clemson University to serve as resources. No date was set for the forum. Howze asked the Senators to urge the members of the Faculty to attend the General Faculty meeting on April 14. President Muse was scheduled to give the presentation that he gave to the Board, which Howze felt the Board ignored. (President Muse's presentation to the Board of Trustees on April 3, 1998, can be found at: www.univrel.auburn.edu/events/trustee.html .) Howze said that Muse gave an excellent presentation on what we have done as an institution to deal with the problems we face.

B. Trimble asked if the Senate might be able to act more expeditiously or make some statement that we are concerned about this issue rather than wait for a forum. Howze said that might be worthwhile act, but the Commission was scheduled to meet on April 13. Trimble suggested a resolution that he and several people discussed:

"The Steering Committee be charged with considering and responding to the recent action of the Board in the form of a resolution of some sort to be presented for potential action at the General Faculty meeting on April 14."

The motion was seconded.

Y. Kozlowski (Past Senate Chair) felt that it is very important that we have a group of faculty volunteers who attend every single Commission meeting. The meetings are open by Alabama law. We cannot just rely on one or two Faculty members who become members of this Commission. There were Faculty members present at most of the 21st Century Commission meetings. Howze agreed with this charge.

J. Grover had attended the last Board meeting. The Board had its Executive Session beginning at 7:30 and it did not end until after 9:30. Trustee Richardson had indicated to Grover that the Board was deliberating over a few resolutions. One of those resolutions was the one that Trustee Lowder brought to the floor at the general meeting. The Board was required to vote then on who would be elected to the Commission, and ballots were already prepared for the vote. Grover said that in fact, the ballots had already been marked. Trustees Lowder, Samford, Richardson, Venable, and Spina were elected to the Commission. Grover asked that Provost Parks obtain a copy of that Resolution. The Resolution calls for the revisiting of the 21st Century Commission Report, and to look at it particularly in terms of the long-term plans outlined in view of what the Board defined as "changing times". Grover thought that the Board was explicitly after some economies that can be drawn within the University system so that what survives will be able to be properly funded and operational. Implicit in this and from the comments that were made, (Grover felt that) the Board is definitely looking at completely restructuring the University system; this would explain why the search for a new Provost was put on hold. Grover thought it could be extremely dangerous to proceed without appropriate participation and representation by those people who would be most affected by organizational changes. He was in favor of a resolution that expressed the concerns of the Senate and the Faculty in general.

Chair Swanson noted that the Rule Committee would decide who the two Faculty members for the Commission would be on April 9.

A. Dunlop (English) asked if someone could review what the governance issues are and what is involved in "Clemsonation". Trimble said some of the issues date back to 1991 when Joseph Renden chaired an ad hoc committee on University governance. The discussion always seemed to return to the topic of the Board, and was a major governance problem that this committee faced. After the last Board meeting, some people were worried that there had been a mechanism for faculty involvement in program review (and elimination) but the Board essentially overrode it. Trimble said that "gets at the heart" of shared governance within the University, and he felt that reinforced some of the problems that were identified in 1991. Also, (we) were very far along in the search for a dean for Liberal Arts. Trimble said that was micro management from the Board.

Chair Swanson said the first report of the Commission would be in September.

Y. Kozlowski said that President Muse showed to the Board that 47% of Auburn's total budgetary costs are in the academic realm, while 53% is associated with Administration. No comments were made by the Board about the administrative side, such as streamlining the support services that keep the University running. (We) would not have been so disturbed by the Board's actions had any mention been made that the entire University system would be examined.

B. Gladden (Health & Human Performance) asked if there was any evidence that the Board is working toward increased funding, at least to the level of University of Alabama. Also, should that be something the Steering Committee considers in making a resolution recommending action. Chair Swanson did not think the Board was committed to any serious budget increases. He felt that if it were not for the anecdotes supplied by some Faculty members, the Board would not have approved the 7.6% tuition increase. Swanson also felt that any time a tuition increase is proposed, there will be some dissenting opinion by Board members.

G. Howze said it was noted that Auburn's student appropriations is considerably less than that of University of Alabama. The Board recognized that inequity has always existed but did not offer any solutions. Howze felt that the Board does not consider it to be the responsibility of the Board to find money for Auburn.

The "sense of the Senate" regarding instruction toward the Steering Committee to prepare a resolution (as presented by B. Trimble) was favorable (hand vote). Chair Swanson said that the Steering Committee considered that a strong recommendation.

RESOLUTIONS:

A. Resolution on Faculty Participation in 1% Reallocation: Rex Gandy, Physics Senator

The Resolution was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. It was a result of the recent activities of the College of Science and Mathematics Planning Committee, which was charged with finding 1% of funds for salary enhancements. The majority of the Committee voted not to choose one of the three options outlined in the Resolution, because any of the three would be detrimental to the quality of education. The Resolution was written to express the sense of the Senate to the Administration that in the long-term, this type of reallocation will be detrimental to the University. The motion to adopt the Resolution was seconded.

J. Grover understood that the 1% will be identified by each unit, and will be used within each units only for salary enhancements this year. However, Gandy pointed out that while existing faculty will receive raises, there will be no funds left over to hire people to fill the vacant positions. Provost Parks said that over a five-year period, (we) will reallocate funds from certain parts of the University to other parts for program and salary enhancement. Some programs will have to be reduced in this process. The intent was to look at programs and find ways to reallocate funds and strengthen certain areas. Parks said there was a "noble intent" in the 1% reallocation this year, in that those funds were to remain as discretionary funds within colleges and schools.

R. Gandy said that on a university-wide basis, program review and reallocation is a good idea. But at the college level, reallocation of 1% in a given year could mean that three high-priority positions may not be filled. Provost Parks said that in the following four years, the money will very likely be put into a central pool; those funds will be reallocated on an appropriate basis. Gandy said that the sense of the Resolution is that the process not be conducted the way it was this year. Parks said that the Administration does not plan to do it this way after this year. There were good reasons why this approach was taken, which included trying to maximize salary increases.

The Resolution carried by voice vote (not unanimous).

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

Respectfully submitted,

(Signed)

Jennie Raymond

Senate Secretary