ABSENT: K. Alley, T. Brower, R. Burlson, J. Crawford, C. Dupree, S. Finn-Bodner, J. Grover N. Haak, R. Henderson, D. Hendrix, G. Hill, J. Hung, R. Jaeger, P. Johnson, L. Katainen, M. Kraska, R. Kunkel, F. Lawing, J. Melville, J. Morgan, L. Myers, D. Norris, C. Pitts, P. Popovich, C. Price, R. Ripley, T. Smith, A. Tarrer, H. Thomas, G. Watkins.
ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): R. Burgess (D. Rehm), S. Dawsey (T. Martinson), A. Dunlop (C. Relihan), R. Gandy (J. Hanson), B. Hames (M.-K. Lee), D. Himelrick (F. Dane), T. Lee (D. Foster), J. Marion (R. Shumack), E. Moran (R. Norton), J. Novak (G. Simpson).
Senate Chair Glenn Howze called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the May 13, 1998, meeting were approved as posted on the Senate Web Page.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. President's Office: William V. Muse
Provost Paul Parks has finalized his retirement date as September 1, 1998. The Provost had earlier agreed to delay his retirement at the request of the Administration. However, the budget bill that was passed included language that provides very attractive financial incentives for retirement by September 1; Parks and Muse both felt this was an opportunity that should not be declined. President Muse intends to appoint an interim provost effective September 1, 1998, to serve until a new provost is appointed; Muse does not expect that that will not be before July 1999. Nominations for interim provost are welcome. The next year will be challenging, and we need the most effective leadership that is available for the academic affairs area of the University.
The Board of Trustees approved budgetary guidelines at their June 1, 1998, meeting. The guidelines will provide an 8.5% salary pool for 1998-99. President Muse had presented a proposal to the Trustees that had been recommended to him by the Budget Advisory Committee that called for a 4% increase across-the-board, 4% for merit, and 0.5% for equity for all employee groups. After considerable debate the Board felt that greater flexibility for merit increases should be provided to the Faculty in light that there have not been merit monies available for the past three years. Hence, the proposal was modified to provide Faculty with 3% across-the-board, 5% for merit increases, and 0.5% for equity. The allocation for Staff and A&P will remain as originally proposed (4%, 4%, and 0.5%). President Muse is grateful that we have the ability in the upcoming year to award employees for their dedicated service and for their outstanding performance.
J. Hanson (Physics) asked if upper administration would distribute the 8.5% according to each unit's salary pool, or would there be differential allocation of the money. President Muse thought that it would be distributed on a proportional basis. The merit increases will be 5% of the base salaries in each college and unit.
M. Boudreaux (Pathobiology) thought that the 5% for merit included the 1% that was being identified within the colleges (to be put back into the colleges); President Muse confirmed this.
L. Gerber (Past Senate Chair) asked if the 1% within the colleges was to be used at the discretion of the colleges. President Muse said that (we) are interpreting that discretional area as merit. The intention of the Board was that there should be maximum flexibility to the various academic units to reward outstanding performance. The 1% provided by each college to that salary pool will be added to the 4% merit pool. Further details on the allocation of those monies will be between Provost Parks and the deans of the respective colleges. Don Large said that the guidelines that were presented suggest that the 1% be put toward merit/market increases, and that is the general expectation. Gerber pointed out that equity is market-related; Large agreed.
B. Senate Chair: Glen Howze
Chair Howze commented on the recommendations that had been made to the Board at their last meeting. The Budget Committee, on the advice of the Faculty Salary Committee, had recommended a 4% across-the-board raise. This was based on data that indicated there had been an approximate 9% increase in the cost-of-living over the three-year period of interest, while there had only been a 4.6% salary increase. Howze pointed out that for some people, the 3% cost-of-living increase will not be adequate to counteract projected cost-of-living increases.
The Board also approved a new match for tax-deferred annuities. Currently, there is a 4% match on the first $18,000 of income ($780). This was raised to 5% of the first $18,000 (an increase of $180). This is available for all employees, and the Business Office will give notification as to when people can sign up for the increase.
R. Mirarchi (Zoology & Wildlife Science) is a member of the Faculty Salaries Committee, and said that the Committee spent considerable time discussing the recommendations given to the Budget Advisory Committee. Mirarchi was upset about the circumvention of the process by the Board. Chair Howze felt the action came about accidentally; one point that had been made is that there has not been any merit money in the past three years. Also, there were also three dissenting votes within the Budget Advisory Committee; the Board members wanted to know why there was dissention. Howze said that he too had been upset that the Board chose to override the work of the committees, and hoped that that would not happen again.
Nominations for the new provost should be given directly to President Muse, who is receptive to having input into the process.
There was a good response on the web-site for volunteering for committees. A few more nominees are needed, and names should be directed to Howze, Secretary Weese, Secretary-elect Marcia Boosinger, or Chair-elect Jo Heath.
An excellent editorial about the state of Alabama politics was printed in the June 7, 1998, edition of the New York Times issue, written by Howard Raines . Howze said the article is a very strong indictment of our current political situation in Alabama.
The latest issue of the Chronicle has an article discussing tenure. Howze felt that tenure will become an issue in Alabama, as it has in other states.
C. Role Commission: Wayne Flynt and William Walker
There have been two Commission meeting since the last Senate meeting. During that time, the Commission has retained Robert Williams as a consultant from Triangle Associates. Williams has met twice with the Commission. The first time he presented an overview of the situation as he perceives it based on telephone interviews with almost all of the Commission members. At the second meeting, Williams presented a plan for carrying out the charge to the Commission. Walker added that as of the previous Friday, the Commission had voted to approve the plan. Supposedly, the Commission will be 75% completed by September 1, 1998. Walker observed that, "If you don't know where you're going, how do you know when you're 75% of the way there?"
Williams' plan is very highly process-oriented, and he has done an excellent job at tying together the various elements of the University. Walker felt the Commission is making reasonable progress although it has been a bit bumpy. The Commission has affirmed and accepted the 21st Century Commission report several times, and Walker said that as proposals are made over the next several years, they will probably be related to that report.
The notion of the comprehensive land-grant university was also discussed by the Commission. The Commission discovered that there is no apparent conflict with that point, and indeed, Auburn University will be a comprehensive land-grant university. That was both gratifying and surprising to Walker.
The next meeting of the Commission is on July 10, 1998; prior to the meeting an agenda will be made available.
Flynt said that the most critical issue about Williams' recommendation is that it is process-oriented. Some of the Trustees showed frustration over the presentation of the recommendations, and there were frequent comments to move more quickly. Flynt felt that the frustrations arelargely due to the indecision as to what the Commission is about. The process of what (we) are going to do will be fairly easy to determine. If the task is to look at programs, that is a different matter. Part of the problem is that some Trustees want to deal with programs and others want to deal with process. If the task is process, the Trustees will not be able to "micro-manage" the decisions; that will be left up to the faculty and administration.
After Don Large's presentation regarding the reallocation of 1-2% as a way of solving the problems of faculty salaries, one of the Trustees said that (we) exist to answer those questions. The same response was given after Provost Parks made a presentation about how we must find way to strengthen the best units and programs within each college. The same response was given in regard to AU's relationship with AU Montgomery.
There was a change in Williams' proposal on June 1. The original proposal (which was defeated) read as follows:
"Because of the public nature of the work of the review commission, most of its meetings will be open to the public. Infrequently, the Commission will close its meetings in order to provide a more reflective and interactive retreat setting. Groups such as the commission need a variety of meeting venues. Again recognizing the public importance of its work, the commission agrees that in closed meetings the following guidelines are in effect: (1) closed meetings are for the discussion and the exploration of options; (2) no decisions will be made in closed sessions; (3) printed materials used in a closed meeting will be available to the public following meetings; (4) the agenda for closed sessions will be available to the public following the meeting; (5) the staff of the commission will provide a brief narrative of the discussion."
The alternative wording that will go into the procedures is:
"Because of the public nature of the work of the review commission, the commission meetings will be open to the public. However, not knowing the full range of specific information or presentations that might be helpful to the commission, the commission would consider the merits on a case-by-case basis of any specific requests to close any meeting or portion of the meeting."
In terms of undergraduate education, Trustee Lowder said that if undergraduate education is the major priority of the University (according to the 21st Century Commission report), perhaps we do not need some of our doctoral programs. This is precisely the problem Flynt sees with a program-orientation to the 21st Century Commission. Lowder did not know that one of the reasons to have graduate programs is that it is so cost-effective in teaching large core courses; the alternative costs would be high if there were no GTAs.
D. Task Force: Jo Heath
Barry Burkhart plans to present a report of the Task Force at the July 10th meeting of the Commission. One subcommittee is studying the AU-AM definition, which is very important to Ed Richardson. This committee consists of Joe Hill, Don Nobles, Nelya McKenzie, Roger Ritvo, and June Henton. Another subcommittee is looking at Paul Spina's statement that the commission needs to look at the big picture; that committee consists of June Henton, Jo Heath, Yvonne Kozlowski, Dwight Wolfe, Don Nobles, David Wilson, Kent Fields, and Brenda Turner.
J. Hanson asked for details about the "Spina Hard Decision Subcommittee." Spina had said that the University will not save such money looking at small issues, and that (we) must step back and look at the big picture.
Chair Howze pointed out that there is confusion about the purpose of the Commission, and thus there is more confusion about what the Task Force is about. The Task Force will try to respond to any agenda items created by the Commission. The meetings for the Task Force are also open, and are held at 11:00 a.m. on Thursdays in the Library conference room. Howze ended by saying that there has been wonderful response from faculty and staff in regard to the Commission meetings.
E. Higher Education Partnership: Gordon Stone, Executive Director
A handout was provided at the current meeting, as well as a brochure for the Higher Education Partnership. There will be a membership drive in the Fall, and payroll deduction will be available ($12 per year).
Stone discussed the purpose and activities of the Partnership as outlined in the handout. He emphasized the need for an organized effort in advocating higher education in the political arena, stating that over the past four years, Alabama's higher education budget has lost over $200 million. The Higher Education Partnership is the first vehicle for a common voice for the institutions in Alabama, and Stone gave many examples of how that voice has been and can be effective in representing higher education.
The Partnership has a Board consisting of 37 people, which includes faculty, staff, students, alumni, business CEOs, university presidents, and political lobbyists. Each institution has one institutional representative, which is typically the lobbyist, to provide the political input that is needed. There is a rotation system of three faculty, three staff, three students, three alumni, and three presidents, so that each institution has one of those slots. There is also a Partnership advisory council that has three positions, the chair of council presidents has a position, and a business CEO round table group has three positions.
Chair Howze thought that the Partnership is a very exciting organization and urged everyone to consider joining.
OLD BUSINESS:
Faculty Salaries Committee: Sheri Downer
This discussion was carried over from the previous Senate meeting (see minutes on the Senate webpage). A friendly amendment has been accepted by Downer that said we would work toward reaching 100% of the regional average for faculty salaries.
R. Mirarchi offered a friendly amendment relative to equity adjustments in Point #3 of the recommendations, which would read, "In no way is this commitment to a more equitable salary structure to be achieved though faculty or staff cuts that would endanger overall instructional quality." Downer accepted that friendly amendment.
B. Turner (Staff Advisory Council) offered a friendly amendment to Point #7 that would read, "The staff employee group should be brought up toward 100% of the average salary or wages in their comparable labor markets." Downer accepted the friendly amendment.
J. Heath (Senate Chair-elect) asked for clarification of the amendment to Point #2; it would read, "... reaching 100% of the regional average for faculty salaries by rank within the next five years."
The Resolution passed by voice vote.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Retention Committee: Paula Backsheider, Chair
A report of the Retention Committee was provided with the agenda for the current meeting; Backsheider reviewed the major points of the report.
This new system will be in place this Fall. Backsheider explained that it will be an integrated system in which data is shared, involving recruiting and admissions, registration and records, financial aid, billing and receivables, and student progress toward graduation (on-course system). With the student progress program, a student will be able to determine his/her progress toward the degree they are seeking, as well as how they would be progressing if they switched into another major.
There are three interfaces to the system. Most of central offices and departmental offices will use mainframe screens. Students will have web and telephone interfaces, and most faculty members will have access to a web system. Faculty members will be able to enter grades via the web.
One difference with the new system is that prerequisites will now be "hard" rather than merely suggested; a student will not be able to register for a course without the prerequisites unless someone overrides the policy. Other differences are that it will be easy to put subtitles on courses (as will appear on transcripts), data will be shared, there will be broader web offerings, student matriculation changes can be tracked, and GPAs can be calculated for graduate students (as well as within majors).
The system will be available for the core offices on September 1, and the web and telephone interfaces should be available on September 8. Some of the things to expect are new codes, newly recognized data errors, slow response of the system, a favorite screen may be missing, uncertainty about procedure, and discovery of new possibilities. By December there should be better data in the system, more control over departmental procedures, improved response time, more efficient ways to handle procedures, much of the on-course system will be available, and increased comfort with the system.
More information about the system is available at: SIS@mail.auburn.edu, www.auburn.edu/~isysadm/sct/sis, and https://auburn.edu/oasis/ .
Chair Howze asked if the University is getting away from the legacy code (the year 2000 problem). Backsheider said this system does not have a problem with it, and overall, we are making good progress.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.