ABSENT: K. Alley, C. Bailey, W. Brewer, T. Brower, R. Burleson, A. Cook, R. Evans, S. Finn-Bodner, N. Haak, D. Himelrick, J. Hung, R. Jaeger, R. Kunkel, F. Lawing, D. Leonard, D. Lustig, J. Melville, E. Moran, L. Myers, C. Pitts, G. Plasketes, J. Regan, R. Ripley, D. Rouse, J. Sheppard, W. Stegall, A. Tarrer, H. Thomas, E. Thompson, H. Tippur, G. Watkins.
ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): T. Boosinger (D. Angarano), R. Burgess (D. Rehm), B. Burkhalter (J. Golson), R. Gandy (S. Knowlton), G. Hill (A. Illies), C. Moriarty (C. Curtis), J. Neidigh (L. Hayner), J. Novak (P. Duffy), S. Shapiro (B. Burkhart), R. Wylie (A. Knipschild).
Senate Chair Glenn Howze called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the July 14, 1998, meeting were approved as posted on the Senate Web Page.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. Provost Office: Paul Parks
The Articulation and General Studies Committee had two deadlines: (1) a statewide, general studies program was to be approved by fall of 1998, and (2) a statewide articulation agreement was to be made by fall of 1999. A general studies curriculum had been approved some time ago; Auburn has moved to implement that program in fall of 1998. The only significant effect it will have on our core curriculum will be to increase the number of English composition courses from one to two. There will now be two freshman-level composition courses, and a junior-level technical writing course will no longer be offered.
In terms of the statewide articulation agreement, the Committee is making good progress. Some programs that have already been approved across general studies curriculum and the "Area Five." The chief academic officers in the state have been involved, which has made this process work much better. Speech Pathology's curriculum is scheduled to be submitted to consideration on August 14. Programs that have been approved already are Engineering, Allied Health, Nursing, Human Sciences (Auburn's program), Computer Science, Business, Education, Pharmacy, Architecture, Forestry, and Agriculture (almost complete). It was much harder to deal with courses beyond the general studies curriculum, such as some found in Liberal Arts. A compromise was made so that six to nine hours would be found in common between the institutions, and the remainder would be prescribed forward the institution that the student is transferring to. Given that compromise, the following programs have been approved: Anthropology, Sociology, Human Geography, Art, Art History, Chemistry, Economics (submitted for review), Foreign Languages, History (submitted for approval), English (pending), Mathematics, Music, Music History, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Political Science, Psychology, Speech Communication (submitted for approval).
The majority of the Committee's work will soon be completed, and the Committee will then function in more of a maintenance capacity. For example, it will be available to review new courses and deal with disagreements regarding student transfer.
Last year (we) were trying to get the Board of Trustees to accept (our) plans that were derived from the 21st Century Commission as a basis for long-term planning for the University. (We) presented to the Board discussions about programs that had low viability. Out of that, a decision was made to establish a university-wide Program Review and Assessment Committee, which was appointed by the Rules Committee of the Senate in close relationship with the office of the Provost. The Committee applied a number of criteria besides viability to its considerations. Forty-one programs were reviewed; action on Wildlife Sciences, Microbiology, and Zoology at the graduate level was deferred until the College of Science and Mathematics completes its review. Eleven programs were recommended to for retainment, ten programs were recommended for deletion, and seven programs were recommended for merger. Of the programs that were merged, all but one has been approved by the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE) and are now in place. The merger between Agricultural Engineering and Forest Engineering has not been approved yet. At the last Board meeting, a recommendation to rename the new program as Bio-systems Engineering was not approved; the Board did not want to take that action until the work of the Role Commission is complete.
The programs that were deleted (with ACHE approval) were General Agriculture (B.S.), Curriculum Instruction (Doctorate of Education), Post-Secondary Education (Ph.D.), Agricultural Engineering (M.S. and Ph.D.), Entomology (B.S.), Rural Sociology (B.S.), Fine Arts (Masters), Visual Communication (B.A. and M.A.).
Provost Parks wanted to emphasize that the actions proposed by the Committee were taken.
Provost Parks concluded his remarks by thanking the Senate, and saying that it has been very rewarding to work with the Senate and the faculty in general. (We) have had a relationship of common respect that has allowed (us) to do what is best for the University. He had enjoyed working with the Senate officers over the last five years. (We) have had a very constructive working relationship, the weekly meetings have been very informative; the officers were "candid but collegial."
The Senate responded with a warm standing ovation for Provost Parks.
B. Senate Chair: Glenn Howze
A time line for the Role Commission's activities was provided at the current meeting; it will also be posted on the Commission's website. Also, all submitted plans for reorganization of the University will be posted.
Connor Bailey (Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology) and John Pritchett (Provost's Office) are new members of the Task Force.
A Priorities Committee has been appointed by President Muse. Trustee Lowder had previously wanted to know what programs are low priority. President Muse chose the Rules Committee nominees James Bradley (Zoology & Wildlife), Gilmore Reeve (Health & Human Performance), and Donna Solly (Human Development & Family Studies). The additional faculty members named by President Muse are Paula Backscheider (English), Wayne Johnson (Electrical Engineering), and David Grolin (Poultry Science).
"Lunches with the Trustees" are being scheduled, and all are welcome. Lunch with Trustee Spina is scheduled for August 21. Gary Swanson (Immediate Past Senate Chair) described the lunches, in which typically a dozen faculty members and a single Trustee have an informal discussion. Interested faculty should contact Swanson; several more lunches are planned.
There has been some question about the salary equity issue. The Senate had previously approved the report of the Faculty Salary Committee, in which monies available for pay increases were divided into three areas: 3% across-the-board, 5% merit, and 0.5% for equity. Howze will post data on the web that will allow any faculty member to compute whether or not they should have received an equity increase this year. The Faculty Salary Committee will revisit aspects of the equity issue next year, such as what the salary floors should be.
The Rules Committee has completed the list of nominees for Senate Committees. The list for University Committees will soon go to President Muse. Hopefully those appointments will be made by October 1.
Jim Novak (Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology) has mailed out a questionnaire about faculty loss. Faculty should complete those forms and return them.
There will be a reception for Provost Parks' retirement on August 20 in the University Conference Center.
L. Katainen (Foreign Languages & Literature) asked if there was any new information about the Arboretum/Art Museum debate. Howze did not have information, and did not think that the issue would be going away anytime soon.
C. Role Commission: Wayne Flynt and William Walker
Flynt commended the faculty for their attendance at the Role Commission meetings. He felt that the dynamics of the whole process have changed because of the faculty's participation. For instance, he gets a strong impression that there will no longer be talk about secret meetings.
Flynt briefly announced what was discussed at the Commission's meeting August 7. Barry Burkhart had made a superb report from the Task Force about criteria for reorganization or consolidation. There were two reports in response to requests for reorganization. The forestry industry of Alabama was opposed to an earlier presentation, which dealt with the locating Forestry within the College of Agriculture. The second report was regarding a proposal that would break up Human Sciences and relocate the different parts throughout the University. Drew Clark gave an articulate and rational report on program review. Also discussed were procedures for public meetings, one of which will be held on August 21. Guidelines for public meetings will be 10-minute presentations (strictly enforced), with five minutes for questions. Some of the Trustees felt that it would be the Task Force's responsibility to listen to these presentations. ( Flynt felt that this was an indication that there is no more enthusiasm on the part of many of the people who "brought us to this place.") Procedures were discussed for President Muse's recommendations on the reorganization/consolidation, which will be made on September 18. Flynt said that any input should be submitted before this date. He also felt that the Task Force will have a key role in deciding the procedure that will drive President Muse's recommendations. The consultant that the Trustees' hired was also discussed; this consultant has no official role. Finally, Flynt mentioned that he would not be present at the Commission meeting on November 13. Barry Burkhart will attend in his place, as he is abreast of all the issues materials.
Walker added that if (we) were in normal times, reorganization would be an iterative process. Priorities would be considered and then related back to reorganization and other issues. The current process is not iterative, which Walker felt is problematic. He agreed that all input should be submitted as quickly as possible. President Muse will have his recommendations for reorganization on September 18, and recommendations for priorities and programs that should be eliminated will be made on October 15.
Chair Howze emphasized that it is very important for the faculty to get involved now. He will be putting new information on the website.
D. Task Force: Barry Burkhart, Chair
Chair Howze said that since the previous Senate meeting, President Muse had asked the Task Force to be the filter for the plans for reorganization. Thirty such plans had already been submitted, and the Task Force was to make the initial review and make a recommendation to President Muse.
Burkhart shared some history. He had served as Senate Chair-elect and Chair during the transition into the current administration. He found it striking that during that period of time, the administration is to work with the faculty. He said it is difficult to appreciate until one attends a meeting with an administrator who treats the faculty with absolute disdain. He recognized and thanked Provost Parks for not only treating faculty as equals, but also for treating everyone as a "real gentleman" would.
The Task Force developed a set of criteria by which proposals should be evaluated against; President Muse has incorporated these criteria into the process. There are four criteria that are to be used at this stage. (1) Educational enhancement (e.g. How will this change enable the University to more effectively meet the needs of the students and constituencies?). This criterium is considered by the Task Force as the "preeminent among equal," being weighed much more heavily in consideration of the proposals. (2) Efficiency (e.g. How will this change reduce costs or enable to unit to serve a greater number of constituencies at the same cost?). Burkhart said that Auburn University is already extraordinarily efficient, and any changes would not be likely to result in substantial cost savings. (3) Viability (e.g. Does the reorganization enhance the viability of programs that might not meet viability criteria?). (4) Economy of scale (e.g. How does the proposed plan for reorganization lend itself to being managed?). The two additional criteria that the Task Force had proposed are stakeholder participation and bench marking success models.
Burkhart felt that in the evaluation process, if a proposal for organizational change does not meet or exceed these criteria, there is no need to make change just for change's sake. So far, the 35 proposals submitted range from very small to very large suggestions. Burkhart felt that they do not represent a very good sample of the universe of possible changes. Also, he has found that the easiest way to determine what a proposal says is to look at where it came from. That is, most of the proposals have the curious effect of benefitting the units from which the proposals were submitted.
President Muse has divided the proposals into five categories: (1) specific, usually modest changes in administrative policy or practice; (2) changes within colleges or administrative units; (3) transfer of programs or operations across colleges or units; (4) transfer of programs across campuses (AU to/from AUM); and (5) reorganization at all academic units and levels.
B. Gladden (Health & Human Performance) asked if there is opportunity to combine elements of the different proposals, and also if there is an option for no reorganization. Burkhart said that in terms of not reorganizing, the decision is left to President Muse. Also, Burkhart thought it was President Muse's intention to consider different aspects of the various proposals.
T. Smith (Human Development & Human Studies) asked if the Task Force had been asked to rate each proposal. Burkhart said that the Task Force is to evaluate all proposals, and then give President Muse the results. It has not been decided if providing President Muse with the ratings would be useful. One problem is that many of the proposals do not lend themselves to being rated with the above-stated criteria. In those cases, there will probably be some type of narrative report in addition to ratings.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
A. Workload Policy: Mary Boudreaux, Chair
Boudreaux discussed the Faculty Workload Policy Statement, which was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. She said that most of the changes to the previous statement were minor, and that the most substantial changes were in the worksheet. Also, she clarified where some of the decimal values seen in the statement come from:
1/15 = 0.0666
1/30 = 0.0333
1/45 = 0.0222
1/60 = 0.0167
Boudreaux went into the details of completing the Faculty Workload Assignment worksheet as described in the Policy Statement, working through a few specific examples. Upon completion of the faculty members ,worksheets using real numbers, everyone was on overload. Boudreaux said that this really is a way to document faculty overload.
P. Johnson (Political Science) said that this new worksheet is relatively comprehensible. However, several activities that a faculty member engages in during the year are not known at the beginning of the year. Boudreaux said that new assignments need to be documented and brought to the attention of the unit head. In a case where a faculty member is on severe overload, the unit head may choose to assign the new task to someone who is less burdened.
U. Albrecht (Mathematics) said that the problem shown in the examples is that most of the overload results from teaching. Teaching seems to be weighted more heavily than the other areas, and therefore, a percentage that demonstrates overload may not necessarily indicate where the real overload is occurring. Boudreaux said the Committee wanted to make the worksheet as simple as possible and that it recognized that research is different for everyone. Activities related to research (e.g. grant writing, scientific papers) will come under assessment.
S. Villaume (Curriculum & Teaching) said that the new worksheet is much simpler than the old version. However, she did not agree with the maximum of 0.5 contact hours for the supervision of interns. This is in conflict with current policies in Curriculum & Teaching. For instance, a student may have an internship in Montgomery; the 0.5-hour maximum will not even account for driving time. Boudreaux said that the Committee knew that by picking arbitrary numbers, it would receive some negative responses. Villaume asked if there would be some flexibility in the first year of the new policy. Boudreaux said that would be a decision of the Senate (in the form of an amendment).
A. Dunlop (English) commended the Committee for producing a sensible and usable system, but was concerned about the restriction of contact hour equivalencies. In the case of English, preparation time often takes much longer than instruction time. Dunlop said that, "Anyone who spends, in English, only one hour preparing for each one-hour class simply is not doing an adequate job." Boudreaux said that the Committee had heard that concern, and the reason for the cap was to prevent the [documentation] from getting "ridiculous." This, like any document, can be mishandled, so the specification of limits was an attempt to prevent such mishandling. Dunlop said that, although not the intent, the effect is to not give credit for effort spent.
Chair Howze asked the Senators to hold meetings with their faculty to discuss the proposed policy and worksheet. Members of the Faculty Workload Committee would be able to attend departmental meetings to aid in discussion.
R. Miller (Theater) said that some faculty members teach large sections (250-300 students), and asked if there will be some credit for this. Boudreaux said that the contact hour equivalency column is supposed to help with that situation, as well as the situation of teaching small groups that require a lot of individual attention.
B. Semester Transition Committee: Christine Curtis, Chair
In 1996-97, the Committee worked on developing the principles, guidelines, and structure of the transition. This involved input from faculty and students, with representatives from across the campus. In 1997-99, the curricula have been and are being developed and reviewed. The core curriculum has been submitted and reviewed, and is basically set. In 1999-2000, the Committee will be spending its time advising students.
In preparation for said advising, which can be a rather large task, the Committee has used some of the information gained from the University of Georgia. The Committee is developing an On-Course system, a computer program that will be available on the new student information system. The system has been developed for several curricula in the College of Liberal Arts and the College of Engineering.
The semester transition will be implemented in fall of 2000. Hopefully at that point, the only tasks to deal with will be a few student appeals. There will be a student appeals process to deal with such cases.
In terms of curriculum review, the Curriculum Committee has reviewed 14 undergraduate programs and one graduate program. The Graduate Council has been equally busy and has been looking at 12 graduate programs. The review schedule can be seen on the Semester Website at https://auburn.edu/semesters/ . The deadline for program submissions are: College of Engineering, College of Science & Mathematics, College of Liberal Arts (October 1, 1998); College of Education, Veterinary Medicine Graduate Program (January 4, 1999).
Curtis added that she may be contacting faculty with questions. She asked that everyone reply as quickly as possible to expedite the program review process.
There will be a call for proposals for the facilities and instructional technologies that may be needed for the semester transition. The call is open from August 1 to October 31, 1998, and is for facilities that may need to be renovated and instructional technology that is absolutely necessary for the semester transition. The call was sent out and additional copies are available through the Provost's office and the website.
B. Gladden asked if there was any concern about the impact of the reorganization on the transition process, or the 2% return for five years. Curtis said that the Curriculum Committee has worked hard to move the process through, and there are many competing events going on that are making that process more difficult. Curtis said that the vast majority of degree programs are core to the University and will remain regardless [of reorganization]. She urged appropriate attention to the curricular matters, because the semester transistion will occur.
C. Rule Committee Appointments: Glenn Howze
Nominations for Senate committees were provided with the agenda for the current meeting. No nominations were made from the floor. The motion to accept the nominations from the Rules Committee carried by voice vote.
D. Program Review and Assessment Committee: Drew Clark, Chair
Clark gave some highlights from the report that was given to the Commission (the full report can be seen at the Commission website). Program review can be important for the University. The literature, the practices of other universities, and the recommendations of the Task Force all suggest that program review, when carried out as a mainstream activity, integrated with other planning and budgeting processes, can do good things for a university. It can help determine an institution's strengths and weaknesses, provide guidance for program improvement, help to assess institutional priorities and perhaps direct budget allocation. It also gives faculty, administrators, and Board members a sense of renewed and informed stewardship about the academic programs they are running. Program review is coming to Auburn University, hopefully in such a way that it can be main streamed and utilized no matter who is in the administration and Senate. Eighty-five percent of all four-year public institutions in the country practice some type of regular program review.
Clark showed a model of what would be seen in a typical program review process. The emphasis of the criteria for program review are on such things as quality, significance, and cost needed to make it a program of distinction.
The Committee is likely to make a full report in October. Clark said it is likely that the Committee will recommend that the principle unit under review be the entire academic unit rather than specific degree programs. Interdisciplinary programs should also participate in this process. Every academic unit should be reviewed, not just those that are having trouble meeting ACHE viability standards. The Committee will probably recommend a five-year cycle, whereby each unit would be reviewed every five years. The Committee will propose that a unit could solicit a condensed review, with the concurrence of the dean of the unit and the Provost.
In an extensive review, the unit would first go through a process of self-study in the fall term of the year, with standard guidelines for preparing that self-study. The second stage would be to assemble a joint, internal/external review team. Two internal members would be chosen from faculty in closely related departments. Three external members would be chosen from the department's current peers. The charge of the joint team would be to review the self-study document and provide additional information, respond to issues raised by the self-study, assess the program in a national context, recommend specific improvements to program quality, and to identify existing exemplary elements of the program.
The joint team would deliver its recommendations to the University's Program Review Committee, which would be composed of vice presidents for Outreach, Research, and the associate vice president for Academic Affairs. The majority of the Committee would be composed of one faculty member from each free-standing school or college of the University, to be appointed by the Rules Committee. Clark suggested that the faculty look at the 1984 report of the ad hoc committee on Resource Allocation and Reallocation, which can be seen on the Commission's website. That report bears a lot of importance to the current situation. He felt that this model will work better than a Council of Deans.
The Program Review Committee would bring recommendations based on the review of the self-study and the review team's recommendations. The charge of this Committee would be to place the documents in a university context, and develop recommendations on program improvement, continuation, enhancement, de-emphasis, merger, or elimination.
The experience of other institutions suggests that, if handled well, program review can be a way to strengthen and improve the quality of programs. This is the intent of the Program Review and Assessment Committee.
Input and suggestions can be directed to Drew Clark at clarkj3@mail.auburn.edu .
RESOLUTIONS:
A. Resolution on Higher Education Partnership: Jerry Brown
A copy of the resolution was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. Brown felt that the work of the Partnership is necessary to inform the general public about the state of funding for higher education, which is essential to receiving increased funding. A membership drive should be completed by November 1, and will be conducted through the departments. Payroll deduction is available ($1 per month). Most of the membership money will go to the general public relations effort.
The motion to adopt the resolution carried by voice vote.
B. Resolution Related to the Siting of the Planned Art Museum in the Donald E. Davis Arboretum: Ralph Mirarchi, Zoology & Wildlife
A copy of the resolution was provided with the agenda for the current meeting. The motion to adopt the resolution was seconded by U. Albrecht; the motion carried by voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.