ABSENT: J. Bannon, T. Brower, R. Burgess, J. Cherry, A. Cook, J. Crawford, C. Dupree, R. Evans, S. Finn-Bodner, J. Grover, R. Henderson, J. Hung, M. Kraska, R. Kunkel, F. Lawing, D. Lustig, L. Myers, J. Neidigh, C. Pitts, T. Powe, J. Regan, J. Sheppard, T. Smith, G. Swanson, A. Tarrer, E. Thompson.

ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): S. Bentley (Y. Kozlowski), T. Boosinger (D. Angarano), B. Burkhalter (B. Karcher), B. DeMent (M. Jernigan), P. Johnson (G. Gryski), L. Katainen (S. Spencer), P. Parks (L. Glaze), C. Price (J. Worthington), S. Schneller (L. Wit).

Senate Chair Glenn Howze called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the April April 7, 1998, meeting were approved as posted on the Senate Web Page. Chair Howze announced that he had appointed Herb Rotfeld as the parliamentarian for the Senate.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A. President's Office: William V. Muse

President Muse discussed the budget passed by the Alabama legislature on April 27, 1998; this budget was also signed by Governor James. This budget provides an increase of 4.79% for each of the divisions of Auburn University. Combined with the savings that we will incur from a reduction in contribution to the Retirement System of Alabama for each employee, and funds that are to be reallocated, we will be able to provide for an 8.5% salary increase in 1998-99. After the deprivation that the Faculty has suffered over the past three years, this should be good news. Our preliminary assessment is that this will be one of the largest increases in the South this year, and should improve our relative standing as to average faculty salaries among SREB institutions.

The University Budget Advisory Committee has sent to President Muse their recommendations concerning the allocation of the proposed 8.5% salary increase, proposing that there be a 4% across-the-board increase, 3% for merit, 0.5% for equity, and 1% to be distributed on terms to be determined by the college or operating units. The across-the-board segment is designed to neutralize the effects of inflation over the past three years. According to our analysis, the rate of inflation over the past three years has been approximately 9%. We provided a 3% increase in 1996-97, and an additional 2% increase in January of 1998, leaving the 4% that is need to "catch up." We will be presenting our recommendations to the Board of Trustees on June 1, 1998, for salary increases as well as for other budgetary guidelines. President Muse extended thanks to the Budget Advisory Committee for the very diligent and effective work they have done again this year.

The Commission to Review the Role of Auburn University has had two meetings so far. President Muse was very pleased with the number of faculty who have attended these sessions, and particularly with the excellent way in which the University participants have contributed to the discussions.

One matter that arose at the last meeting that deserves further explanation is the authorship of the resolution establishing the Commission. First, all resolutions that are presented to the Board are authored by someone on the campus, such as a vice president, dean, or the president. The resolution is then put into proper format by the secretary of the Board and put on the agenda for consideration by the Board. The initiative for the review that is under way came from Mr. Lowder, who indicated the desire to have the Board look at possible further reductions in University programs or in its operations. President Muse had suggested to Mr. Lowder that issues of such importance needed to have input from the campus, and offered to draft a resolution describing how that might take place. The Commission was an outcome of discussions between President Muse, Vice President Large, and Provost Parks; all of them participated in either writing or reviewing a draft that was subsequently sent to Mr. Lowder for his approval. The resolution was then presented to the Board for its action.

President Muse continues to be hopeful that the Commission can be constructive and that it will result in positive benefits for the University, and he intends to continue to work in support of that objective.

C. Bailey (Steering Committee) asked when Mr. Lowder made the original suggestion (as to the formation of the Commission). President Muse recalled that it was two to three weeks before the Board meeting. Bailey asked if the request came from only Mr. Lowder, or if it reflected concerns expressed by other Board members. President Muse said it came from one individual, but it may have reflected discussions Mr. Lowder had with other Board members.

B. Senate Chair: Glen Howze

Committee appointments will be made by the Rules Committee beginning in June. There will be an announcement about volunteering for committees, and Chair Howze urged people to serve. Rather than sending out printed announcements, there will be a web page with a form that faculty members can fill in.

A mailing list has been formed for discussion on the "Role Commission." To subscribe, address the following two-line message to majordomo@acesag.auburn.edu :

subscribe com

end

There is a web page where all of the Commission's documents will be posted. All the documents from the Task Force will also be posed on that web page. The address for this web page is www.ag.auburn.edu/commission .

Chair Howze had recently attended a meeting in Birmingham, which had in attendance Gordon Stone, the Executive Director of the Higher Education Partnership. The membership from Auburn has not been very good so far, and Howze recommended that faculty members join ($12 per faculty member). He hoped that Mr. Stone would be making a presentation to the Senate about the Higher Education Partnership.

C. Role Commission: Wayne Flynt

At the May 8, 1998, meeting of the Commission, there was a brief discussion about a document called "Purpose and Objectives," which had been prepared by Ed Richardson. That was followed by some Trustee exceptions about letters that had been written alleging that the intent of the Commission was to reorganize the University. These letters came mainly from students and had been generated by fears and rumors about the Board of Trustees.

There was also discussion about a facilitator and consultant; the Commission decided that it would be a good idea to have a facilitator who is a professional and understands educational policy issues in higher education. It was decided that it is not necessary to have a consultant; Flynt got the impression that the Board had backed away from the notion that a consultant was needed, and that the Commission could trust data generated by Don Large.

The Commission also reviewed some documents that are antecedents to the whole debate, including the February 10, 1984, committee report on resource allocation. Flynt urged the faculty to read this document as soon as it is available at the above mentioned web page. He felt that if we are going through "this process," that report provides criteria for questions of centrality, quality, and resource allocation. It also provides for substantial faculty and University Senate input to the process at all levels. A revision of strategic planning document (1991) is also available, which is a micro-managing document; we have done most of what is in that document.

There was heated discussion on the 21st Century Commission process. That debate centered around how we got to where we are and what we are supposed to be doing now. Mr. Lowder alleged that President Muse was basically responsible for the perception that a reorganization of the University is under way. President Muse had responded that the initiative for the process came from a conversation with Mr. Lowder. Flynt felt it was entirely possible that the Commission does not know what it is doing, nor do all the Trustees. He felt that we may be engaging in a process in which there are multiple agendas. Some Trustees are engaged in a very real process of looking at either (1) a down-sizing of the University, (2) a more efficient University, or (3) a redefinition of the University, but have no particular agenda driving that. For some Trustees the goal is a more efficient, down-sized University, looking at the reality that under the Equity Funding Lawsuit, all of the money that is going to be growth money (in the Education Trust Fund) is going to go to K-12. Therefore, no new money would go into higher education, and this is particularly true if the current administration is re-elected and no new taxes are put in place.

Flynt asked the Faculty to look at the web page for data from other institutions. Flynt got the sense from Mr. Richardson that the key component in this process will be comparative data.

Flynt felt that the one constant he brought to the process is how we should go about it. He felt that no data should be used by the Commission until the unit that it affects has seen it first. The reason for that is (we) have seen ACHE data that is "plain inaccurate." Flynt would like for the final decision to be preceded by a response from the units as to what the decisions should be. That is, those units that would potentially be involved in down-sizing should be able to address how the University would be affected by such a change.

Flynt concluded by saying that regardless of how people may dislike the purpose, the process stands apart from the purpose of any one Trustee. He felt that any university could profit from a process that looks at itself in terms of whether it is as efficiently organized as it should be, whether it is comparably organized to other universities, and related questions. That is a process that should not be feared. However, if someone has started that process with an agenda and already has in mind what Auburn should be, that is disturbing. John Denson had written a letter expressing this notion.

W. Walker (Dean, Engineering) had not been worrying about what Trustees' agendas may be because he can not do anything about that. The Commissions purpose should be to try to do the best to influence the outcome of the process.

C. Bailey asked if the Commission is planning on addressing non-academic program areas. Walker did not have any objection to that, and welcomed it. The charge from the Board refers to the organizational structure and academic structure of the University. Bailey said that more than half of the total expenditures are for non-academic programs, and he felt that any significant re-examination of the University needs to address non-academic programs. Walker said that the charge from the Board does not include that, and hoped that the issue of involving other segments of the University would be addressed. He added that he was somewhat encouraged after the second meeting of the Commission, because it seemed that communication was beginning to take place. Walker was particularly taken when Mr. Venable stated that he had learned more at the latest meeting than he had at all the Board of Trustees meetings.

W. Flynt said that (this) is where comparative studies become so valuable. There are prejudices about "administrative bloat," and this needs to be tested against comparative data. For instance, all land-grant universities have a very high level of non-academic functions simply because they are mandated under the Hatch Act and the Smith-Lever Act to do things that normal universities do not do. We may find that a smaller proportion of our budget is devoted to those non-academic functions that any of our peer universities.

Chair Howze commented that one of the co-chairs of the Commission contacted ACHE to obtain data about the viability status of Auburn University's programs. Howze was fairly sure that the ACHE data had originated from our Provost's office.

L. Gerber (Past Senate Chair) asked what type of report is to be delivered to the full Board of Trustees in September, 1998. Walker's sense was that the Board simply wants a progress report. He agreed that it was not realistic to expect that deliberations and final reports could be prepared by then. Flynt agreed, and was encouraged by the discussions at the last Commission meeting. He felt that the Board is seeing this as a much more complicated process than they thought. Most of the Trustees Flynt has talked to seem to want a process to be in place by September. Chair Howze believed that when the resolution was passed on the April 3 Board meeting, there were people who voted for it and thought the issue would be resolved by September.

Y. Kozlowski (Substitute for S. Bentley, Library) asked about a request that had been made regarding administrative costs, and said that President Muse had indicated that he would be getting data from the University of Tennessee for the Commission to examine. Chair Howze has seen comparative data from other universities, and felt it was important to move the process beyond just academic programs. According to the data he has seen, Chair Howze said that less than 40% of the Division I budget goes into departments.

D. Task Force: Barry Burkhart, Chair

At the General Faculty meeting, a resolution had been approved calling for the establishment of this Task Force to look at the restructuring of the University.

Burkhart began by saying that given the ambiguity of the nature of the Commission, the ambiguity is "squared" for the tasks of the Task Force.

The members of the Task Force are Barry Burkhart (Chair), Jo Heath, Yvonne Kozlowski, Kent Fields, David Wilson, June Henton, Dwight Wolfe, Brenda Turner , Robert Gottesman, Will Stegall(AU SGA President); from AM the representatives are Don Nobles, Joe Hill; Trent Hafley (current SGA president at AUM) may be asked to participate because the original SGA representative was no longer involved.

The first charge of the Task Force was to make a determination concerning the efficiency of the current academic programs and administrative structure at Auburn University. The other charges are available on the web page mentioned earlier; these charges fall out of the first charge.

In one respect, the first charge is "enormously simple" because the University is already very efficient. The efficiency primarily rides on the backs of the faculty and staff who work at low pay. In some ways, the efficiency question needs to be re-examined. That is, how might we better meet the mission of the University without doing it efficiently on the backs of the faculty.

Burkhart started the work of the Task Force by saying that the value to which they will dedicate this work is the value that is expressed by Alex Huxley, who says that the first task of a scientist is humility in the face of the data. Burkhart sees the task primarily as being scouts for the data. He did not think that we can legitimately come up with answers for all the charges by September. The Task Force is best hoping that it will have identified legitimate processes to get to some of the answers.

Burkhart also hoped that the Task Force could work in some complimentary fashion to the Commission, perhaps serving as a sounding board for recommendations. In some ways, the Task Force better represents the University than the Commission does.

At the first meeting of the Task Force, Don Large gave the presentation that he had made to the Board in July 1997. That had been a "revelation" to Burkhart, and he urged everyone to visit the web page and read that presentation. Burkhart called it the best historical analysis of how we got to where we are, and that it clearly shows when we "closed our eyes to the data."

The Task Force will be meeting weekly throughout the summer. The Program Review and Viability Committee will meet with the Task Force to see that there is no overlap between the two groups. Suggestions and ideas can be forwarded to Burkhart. Chair Howze added that any discussion can also be forwarded to the other members of the Task Force or the Commission.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

A. Academic Standards Committee: Scottedward Hodel

Hodel reviewed the policy information that was provided with the agenda for the current meeting.

In regard to the proposed change to the deferred grade policy, A. Dunlop was concerned that more administrative chores would be placed on the faculty member involved. Hodel said that he and the Committee feel that the responsibility for assessing the quality of work belongs to the faculty member. Dunlop said that "incomplete" would now be the responsibility of the faculty member. If a student misses an exam, the excuse must be approved by the dean's office. Arranging for the student to retake the exam will be new work for the faculty member. Dunlop preferred that "X" remain as an option.

U. Albrecht (Mathematics) preferred to make those decisions himself, and would like to keep a distinction between X and incomplete. He recommended to keep XF, but give the instructor the possibility to make recommendations.

The motion to accept the change to the deferred grade policy carried by voice vote.

The second issue dealt with the AUM transfer policy. The main concern was that a loophole exists in the transfer policy. Under the current proposal, if a student attends a junior college and fails to achieve a 2.5 GPA, they can then go to AUM, take a remedial course and earn a "C," and then transfer to Auburn University because they would then be in academic good standing. In other words, the student would in no way meet AU's current requirements (2.5 GPA). AUM was contacted to see if there was any interest in bringing their transfer requirements up to meet those of AU, but there was no interest. The reason was that most institutions hold a 2.0 GPA for "academic good standing." Additionally, AUM has to compete with other universities in Montgomery and therefore have "market reasons" for maintaining a lower requirement.

The compromise resolution was proposed by the Committee, which would meet the goals stated by the 21st Century Commission (to tighten relations between AU and AUM), but would close the loophole (see information provided with the agenda). Another benefit of the resolution would be to enhance the competitiveness of AUM by attracting students who want to attend AU.

The Committee had some concerns. By joining the two campuses in this fashion, whoever has the higher standards must lower their standards to kinds of students the other institution admits. Also, there is no such transfer policy between institutions governed by a common Board of Trustees that the Committee could locate. AUM is a separate degree-granting institution, and that needs to be recognized in terms of where their autonomy lies.

In general, the Committee felt there was no compelling reason to make the proposed change. Two Committee members voted in favor of the compromise resolution, and nine voted to reject it.

The motion to accept the report as written carried by voice vote.

B. Calender and Schedules Committee: Sadik Tuzun

The proposed calender for 2001-2002 was provided at the current meeting (see attached). Tuzun thanked the members of the Calender and Schedules Committee: Richard Penaskovic, Randy Pipes, C. Crutchley, R. Jaffe, C. Gross, B. Turner, and J. Fletcher.

In the 2001-2002 calender, graduation was eliminated after the summer sessions because there would probably be many students graduating in the summer. (Graduation for those students will be delayed until Fall.) The Thanksgiving break will be from Wednesday, November 21, through Sunday, November 25, 2001. Also, the Committee hopes to eventually adopt Saturday graduations.

R. Mirarchi (Zoology and Wildlife) said that we have not historically had Memorial Day off, and asked if that has finally been approved by "the appropriate channels." Tuzun was not sure, but thought that President Muse approved that holiday.

B. Gladden (Health and Human Performance) asked if the proposed semester calenders have the same number of class minutes as other semester calenders. Tuzun said that the Calender and Schedules Committee originally made a calender with 73 hours, and the Senate voted for 75 hours. This would be more teaching hours than some semester calenders.

The motion to adopt the 2001-2002 calender as presented carried by voice vote.

C. Faculty Salary Committee: Sherrie Downer, Chair

The recommendations of the Faculty Salary Committee were provided with the agenda for the current meeting. The members of the Committee were Ralph Mirarchi, J. PTanja, Larry Gerber, Charles Mitchell, Sam Lowther, Don Large, and Paul Parks. Carl Hudson, Chair of the Faculty Welfare Committee, sat in on all meetings of the Faculty Salary Committee, and Glen Howze represented the faculty at the meetings. The Budget Committee and the deans were also consulted to get feedback on the recommendations.

Downer discussed the recommendations as outlined. The institutions included in the SREB faculty salary data were chosen because the group represented a better overview of comparable institutions to Auburn. In regard to the Martin Formula, the term "M" will be considered as the regional mean rather than the national mean salary for rank or position.

Chair Howze said that the document was reviewed by the Steering Committee the previous week, and it was suggested that an amendment be made from the floor of the present meeting. The amendment would be to change "95% of the regional average" to "100% of the regional average." With that proviso, the Steering Committee approved the recommendations.

S. Villaume (Curriculum and Teaching) asked who would be making the allocation decisions in the third recommendation. Downer said the average SREB data will be calculated for the particular department, and the individual's salary will be used in the Martin Formula. (The individual will not have to solicit funds.) Villaume asked how funds will be allocated in the case when two people are both under 95% of the regional average, but not by the same amount. Larry Gerber clarified that if the third recommendation is accepted, the University needs to find 0.5% of the existing salary base each year for equity purposes, regardless of whether or not there are new monies. He assumed that the "salary floor" be established in such a way so that it does not use up all the money in the central equity pool. Gerber said there is nothing very specific about how the central fund would be allocated beyond making use of the Martin Formula and establishing a floor. Downer said the Committee wants to maintain some flexibility in the system, and not make it so precise that deans and department heads can not work with rewards and problems.

J. Novak (Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology) asked if both twelve- and nine-month appointments were considered. Downer said the salaries are adjusted to nine months, except for the librarian salaries (which are compared on a twelve-month basis).

Y. Kozlowski offered a friendly amendment, to add "by rank" after the "regional average" in the first recommendation.

U. Albrecht offered a friendly amendment, to change "95% of the regional average" to "100% of the regional average."

B. Gladden (HHP) asked for clarification about the salary floor. Downer said the Committee did not want to make a floor so low as to encourage people to leave the University. Chair Howze said that at the Steering Committee meeting, the idea behind the floor was that our poor performers should make as much as the poor performers at other institutions in the region. Downer said that the problem is that the Faculty Salary Committee is not sure that it is their job to deal with how to punish poor performers. B. Gladden (HHP) asked if a person at a low percentage of the regional average will automatically be raised to the floor, even though there may be a good reason for the person being so low. L. Gerber said that specific figures were not recommended because the pertinent data has not been seen by the Committee. In the case where an individual gets tenured, stops being engaged in scholarship, and does a poor job at teaching, that person will not benefit greatly if a floor is established at 75%. Gerber was confident that once the data are available, poor performers will not get a huge increase. Also, if a person is performing at such a poor level and does not deserve anything whatsoever for 20 years, then they do not deserve to be on the Faculty. The floor will bring some equity, and is not designed to give rewards to poor performers.

R. Gandy (Physics) was bothered with the 0.5% mentioned in the third recommendation. In five years, that will equal 2.5% that has to be identified. If that does not come from new monies, that is possibly a 2.5 % cut in faculty in order to pay for equity. He suggested that in the third recommendation, "from new monies" be added after "will be identified."

Y. Kozlowski asked if the 21st Century Commission's recommendations for the next five years were taken into account in this Committee's recommendations. Downer affirmed that, and said the Committee felt that any increase in funding, regardless of where it comes from, had to come up with the 0.5%. The belief was that if salary adjustments are not addressed now, we will get further behind the national average.

D. Leonard (Discrete and Statistical Sciences) pointed out that the RSA reallocation is a one-time event, and that will need to be replaced somehow. His own experience on a reallocation committee is that the 1% specified seems to be coming out of faculty positions. D. Large said the reallocation process over the next five years is intended to bring money into a central pool with the understanding that, if this is endorsed, the first draw on those monies would be for equity increases. Leonard asked if the first draw should be to replace the RSA monies. Large said the recommendation that the Budget Advisory Committee would be making does not utilize all of the continuing new money projected for the next year. Almost $3 million was allocated in the budget for one-time needs as they are identified.

R. Muntifering (Animal and Dairy Sciences) asked if calculations for regional averages were adjusted for department size across the 24 SREB institutions; Downer said they had been adjusted. Chair Howze said that information should be put on the web page.

M. Boudreaux (Pathobiology) asked if salaries for the College of Veterinary Medicine were based on 12-month appointments; Downer said Vet Med was compared with its peers.

L. Gerber had objections to Gandy's friendly amendment. First, it would not be 2.5% over the next five years, because this year is already taken care of. Second, there needs to be a commitment to find some money each year to deal with equity, or we will never make progress in this area.

Much debate followed concerning where the 0.5% would come from, with several people expressing that faculty and staff positions need to be protected. No friendly amendments could be decided on, and further discussion on the Committee's recommendations was deferred to the June Senate meeting.

D. University Budget Advisory Committee: Don Large, Chair

President Muse had already discussed some of the Budget Advisory Committee's recommendations. The Committee's approval for 4% across-the-board increases was not unanimous; those members who did not agree had wanted less than 4% to allow for merit increases or market recognition. (The three deans who sat on the Committee wanted to allow more opportunity for merit recognition.)

Last year, the Budget Advisory Committee adopted and recommended to President Muse a four-year plan to raise the dollar amounts of faculty promotions. Raises for full professors are now $4,500; for associate professors, $3,000. In two more years, those figures should be $6,000 and $4,000, respectively.

In terms of salary and benefits, Auburn University is at the lower end. The Committee has made a recommendation to President Muse that we use $500,000 of new monies to increase tax-deferred annuity matching of 5% for the first $18,000. That recommendation will require approval by the Board. The next goal will be to increase that base to the next level, possibly $25,000.

Money was allocated in the budget for core curriculum needs, the Honors Program, and deferred maintenance. There is a one-time allocation for specific academic needs, which will be particularly important in the semester transition.

RESOLUTIONS:

Resolution Opposing Closed Meetings of the Commission to Review Auburn's Role in the 21st Century: Jo Heath, Senate Chair-elect

The Resolution was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. The thrust of the Resolution is that the Senate strongly recommends that any future meetings of the Commission be open to the public. Also, the wording "the Steering Committee" should be stricken.

G. Hill (Chemistry) called for a friendly amendment to replace "mandate" with "charge;" this was accepted.

The Resolution, as amended, was approved by voice vote.

OLD BUSINESS:

Rules Committee Nominations:

Nominations had been made at the previous meeting (Alex Dunlop, Renee Middleton, Lewis Slaten, and Sadik Tuzun). Nominations were re-opened at the beginning of the present meeting because Jo Heath's position on the Rules Committee had become vacant upon her nomination to Senate Chair-elect. M. Boudreaux (Pathobiology) nominated Ed Morrison (Anatomy and Histology). No other nominations were made.

The Senate elected the following new members to the Rules Committee: Alex Dunlop, Renee Middleton, Lewis Slaten, and Sadik Tuzun.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.