The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m.

The minutes of the previous Fall 1998 Meeting of the University Faculty were approved as posted on the Senate web page.

Presentation of the nominees for University Faculty officers: Gary Swanson

Swanson announced the nominees for Chair-elect and Secretary elect:

Nominees for Chair-elect: Alexander Dunlop, Department of English

Nominees for Secretary-elect: Mary Boudreaux, Department of Pathobiology

Yehia El-Moghazy, Department of Textile Engineering

Voting ballots were distributed to the faculty. Results would be announced at the conclusion of the meeting.

President Muse thanked Glen Howze, Senate chair, for his hard work this past year. This was a particularly difficult year with the extra duties of being on the commission and Glenn handled himself very professionally throughout it all.

The State of the University

I am pleased to have this opportunity to report to you on the state of the university this spring. In many respects, the state of the university is good, and I am optimistic about the future. In other respects, I have some concerns that I think many of you share.

Let me start by citing for you some of the positive things that are occurring on our campus:

1. Our spring undergraduate enrollment is the largest in the history of the University. This is due in part to a record freshman class that we admitted last fall, but more importantly, it reflects an improved freshman retention rate. I want to congratulate Dr. Nancy McDaniel in the Student Success Center for the work that she and her staff have done in this regard. I also want to applaud Dr. Paula Backshieder and the University Retention Committee for their development of a Minority Mentoring program that has increased substantially the retention of minority freshmen. The key to enhancing graduation rates is to help students successfully complete their freshman year.

2. Increasing numbers of qualified students want to attend Auburn. Applications for enrollment for fall quarter 1999 are considerably ahead of last year's record pace. In order to ensure that we have a manageable size freshman class this fall, the Enrollment Management Office will begin to place students on a waiting list. Once registration for Camp War Eagle is completed, we will have firm figures on those who plan to attend and will be able to determine whether additional students can be accepted.

3. The Jule Collins Smith Museum of Fine Art, which started with a budget of $3.5 million and considerable skepticism as to whether those funds could be raised, now has commitments totaling $9.3 million for the construction, maintenance, and administration of this new facility. The Board of Trustees approved schematic plans for the Museum and increased the project budget, in light of the funds committed, at their meeting last week.

4. The Governor's proposed budget for 1999-2000 calls for an increased appropriation for higher education of 5.78 %. This is a far cry from what we experienced during the past four years of the James administration. The House Ways and Means Committee even added an additional one percent to the proposed appropriations during their deliberations last week. There is still a long way to go in this legislative session and we may not achieve all that is being proposed at this point. For example, I am concerned about the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the corporate franchise tax that will cost the State over $100 million a year in revenue. Along with the more favorable budget proposal, it is also refreshing to have Governor Siegelman talking about higher education in a more positive tone. It helps to be appreciated both financially and emotionally.

5. On the subject of the Governor and the Legislature, it appears that the issue of a state lottery for education will come to a vote in the Senate in the very near future. Most analysts expect the lottery bill to pass in the senate and, since it has already passed in the House, to be submitted to the voters on a referendum, perhaps as early as this fall. If that occurs, there will be considerable debate in the state about that issue. Governor Siegelman, because of the importance he places on this issue, is likely to encourage all state agencies, including universities, to support the referendum.

I have no particular strong feelings one way or the other about the lottery. I suspect there are better ways to raise state revenue. But, I also recognize that none of those other ways, particularly raising of taxes, are likely to receive serious consideration in Alabama in the near future. The proposed uses of the profits that would be generated by a lottery are, in my estimation, very beneficial for our State.

The three uses of the revenues would be to:

A. Provide each high school graduate with a scholarship to pay his or her tuition at an institution of higher education. Students would be required to meet certain academic standards such as a 2.5 grade point average, in order to attend a four-year school, with other high school graduates being able to attend a two-year institution. Many students who might not be able to afford attending college would be able to do so because of these scholarships.

B. To fund a pre-kindergarten program for 4-year olds in our state to accelerate the development of their learning skills.

C. To provide for computers for schools in the K-12 educational system.

It is important to note that the higher education institutions in our State would receive no direct financial benefits from the lottery. Students would receive scholarships to pay for their tuition, but this would be a benefit to the students or their parents with the institution receiving the same amount of dollars it would have received otherwise.

There is an element to the lottery issue that poses some potential risks for the institutions of higher education. It is logical that, with the existence of scholarships to pay college tuition, an increased number of high school graduates would enroll in institutions of higher education. That has been the experience in the State of Georgia with the Hope Scholarships. I suspect that Auburn, in particular, would encounter an increased number of applicants and, subsequently, pressure from political officials to increase the number of students accepted for admission. But, unless the State appropriates sufficient dollars for us to increase the size of our faculty and, in some cases, expand our facilities, we would not have the capability of accepting these additional students. I am hopeful that these problems will be understood by the Governor and the Legislature and that plans will be made to provide increased appropriations to us for these purposes as the results of the lottery begin to materialize.

6. At the Board Meeting last Friday, the Trustees authorized the University to establish a major research presence at Fort McClellan and to accept the transfer of surplus property from the federal government for that purpose. With the closure of the military base scheduled for this October, we believe that we have an opportunity to move Auburn into a national leadership position in the field of detection technology, one of our identified strengths. It is our hope that we can work with the federal government in positioning our nation to be better prepared for the early detection and treatment of biological and chemical contamination in both the military and domestic arenas. I congratulate Dr. Mike Moriarty for his leadership in positioning Auburn to capitalize on this opportunity.

7. Also at the Board meeting on Friday, the Trustees selected a site and chose an architect for a new Sciences Laboratory Center that would provide the modern instructional facilities that are needed to support our programs in Chemistry and Biology. This is a major step in our goal to enhance our capabilities in the important areas of Science.

8. In a move to both improve the efficiency of our operations and to enhance our services to our students, the Trustees approved a proposal to contract out the dining and food services on both the Auburn and Auburn University at Montgomery campuses. The firm that was selected is Sodexho Marriott Services, Inc., one of the leading providers of food services on college campuses in the country. This company will spend about $1.4 million to modernize our dining facilities over the summer, will bring in a number of nationally branded food service products, and will pay the University 9.5 percent of the gross revenue that it generates. I think this is a good deal for the University. When our students return next fall, they will find the campus dining facilities and services much more attractive. This change will also expand the options available to those faculty and staff who dine on campus.

Most of our attention over the past several months has been devoted to the work of the Commission on the Role of the University in the Twenty-First Century and the subsequent recommendations that they made to the Board of Trustees in January. At last week's Board meeting, I reported to the Trustees on the progress made in implementing the recommendations that they approved. Executive Vice President Don Large shared with the Board a five-year financial plan that he had developed that is consistent with the parameters they approved. This plan will allow us to bring salaries for all University employees up to a more competitive level, will permit us to increase expenditures on deferred maintenance up to the level recommended, and will improve our departmental operating budgets for the first time in a long while.

It should be emphasized that 90 percent of the new revenue to be generated over the next five years through state support, tuition increases, and internal reallocation will accrue to the benefit of all units and all employees of the University through higher salaries, better operating budgets, and improved facilities. In addition, about 10% of the new funds are to be set aside for the enhancement of selected academic programs. A key point to emphasize is that this plan will allow us to address these chronic problems that we have experienced with minimally increased state support. If state support is more generous than we anticipate, we will be able to more aggressively move in the direction that has been established.

Each of the seven academic programs that has been designated as a high priority has been asked to develop a strategic plan that benchmarks its current status, identifies the goals it feels can be achieved over the next five years, and outlines the investment that it feels will be needed to accomplish those goals. These plans are due to the Provost on June 1st. In order to ensure that these plans are realistic and focused, Provost Walker has contracted with the American Association for the Advancement of Science to provide a panel of experts in each field to review and comment upon the plans. We feel that this external review will be an important step in our "peaks of excellence" program.

The programs must have an acceptable plan in place in order to be eligible for enhancement funding for 1999-2000. In each of the next five years, $1 million of continuing funding will be available for allocation among the approved programs, along with $500,000 in one-time funds for equipment and materials.

The seven academic programs identified as high priorities were selected from 45 proposals submitted to a Program Priorities Committee chaired by Provost Walker, and from a list of 10 programs recommended to me by the Committee. In selecting the programs for this designation, I considered most heavily the following factors:

1. the current strengths of the program;

2. its potential to achieve national stature and thereby to enhance the overall reputation of the University;

3. its importance in the economic development of our State.

Those will continue to be the criteria that will be employed in selecting programs for this designation.

If we are realistic in assessing our current status and the future potential of our funding, we have to conclude that Auburn does not have the resources to compete at the national level in each of the academic programs we offer. The overwhelming majority of our programs have to be focused on serving the instructional, research, and outreach needs of our state and region. But we also know that in order to be recognized as a university of national significance, we must have a few areas in which we rank among the best universities nationally. Our challenge is to find those "niches" or areas where we have a reasonable chance to excel. I believe that those programs that have been selected

are those where such an opportunity might exist.

During my long career in higher education, I have often encountered and been disappointed by an attitude that I have seen emerge here at Auburn and at other institutions. It is a feeling of resentment that surfaces when one academic program is able to advance while others are not given the same opportunity. It is almost a feeling of "I'd rather we all remain mediocre than to have a few excel." That is a short-sighted and unproductive attitude. Just as a rising tide raises all boats, a rising reputation of an institution helps all programs.

Provost Walker and I recognize that there are other academic programs that deserve consideration for the high priority designation. We, therefore, intend to solicit proposals for review in 1999-2000 and for possible inclusion in funding the following year (2000-2001). Our ability to expand the number of high priority programs will be influenced by our success in increasing the funds available for program enhancement in future years, but I am optimistic that can be done.

For the administrative and academic restructuring that was approved by the Board, it is our intent to have these changes in place by the beginning of the fall quarter of 1999, with the exception of the consolidation of Discrete and Statistical Sciences into Mathematics. At the request of Dean Schneller, that change will be phased in over the next five years. The consolidation of the schools of Nursing under one dean and the combination of the Enrollment Management functions for both the Auburn and AUM campuses are proceeding under the direction of planning groups representing both campuses. It is also our hope that those changes can be accomplished by this fall.

The plan that has obviously stirred the most controversy and created the most pain is that of internal reallocation of resources. Internal reallocation is always painful because no one wants to give anything up and deciding what is most important is always hard. But, reallocation was a necessary ingredient for this plan to be acceptable to the Board of Trustees and it is an important step for us in achieving some greater flexibility in the deployment of our resources. We must work towards establishing and maintaining that flexibility if we are going to be able to respond to changes in enrollment patterns and the emergence of opportunities for advancement. In spite of the anguish that has been evident in some circles, I believe that the reallocation plan is manageable. It amounts to

about one percent per year for each of the academic colleges over the next five years. Under the leadership of Dr. Large, the administrative units of the University are reallocating at a much more aggressive rate, approximately 2 percent per year, and do not participate in the 10 percent of resources that are available for academic program enhancement. We all should be grateful to Dr. Large and his staff for their support of the University-wide goals.

Many of you have expressed your concerns to me about the decision of the Board of Trustees to eliminate the Ph.D. program in Economics, in spite of my recommendation and the recommendation of the Academic Program Review Committee that it be retained. I share your disappointment, not only for the decision itself, but also for the reasons that were cited in explaining it.

Let me first of all say that the actions of the Board were, in my opinion, clearly within their power to do so. The Constitution of the State of Alabama vests in the Board of Trustees the authority to "manage and control the University." The Trustees, therefore, have the authority to make any personnel, budgetary, or programmatic decision that they feel inclined to do so. In all cases of matters that are brought to the Board for approval, I present to the Board a recommendation of the action that I feel is in the best interest of the institution. In reaching that conclusion, I try to get the input and advice from those individuals and organizational groups that are most appropriate. I did so in this case, relying heavily on the advice of the Academic Program Review Committee, the University-wide group that is authorized to review academic program decisions beyond the level of the colleges that house the degrees. Based upon its viability, quality, uniqueness, and centrality to our mission, it was my conclusion that the program should be retained. If the Ph.D. program in Economics cannot meet those standards, few of our doctoral programs can.

The reason cited for the decision to terminate the Ph.D. program was that the Dean had

recommended the closure of this program and that he should be able to make this decision without review at a higher level. This view is inconsistent with the traditional operations of a university in which no academic department or college is an autonomous unit, particularly as it relates to curriculum matters. The long tradition of review at the University-wide level is one of the values that helps to produce an academic community with coherence and integrity.

I have a great deal of respect for the views of our deans and their recommendations are seriously considered. This is certainly the case here at Auburn. I have often observed that the group of deans that we have are among the strongest with which I have worked in my career in higher education. I would certainly include Dean Wayne Alderman in that category. But, curriculum issues, in my estimation, deserve the careful and considerable deliberation that they have been traditionally afforded.

Having said that, at the same time, I recognize that the Board of Trustees will not likely be willing to reconsider this decision. We, therefore, must move forward to implement the actions that the Board has taken. We will also continue to go forward with the review of academic programs that fall below the viability standards. That is not only the demand of our Board but is the law of the State. All of the programs below the viability standards are candidates for termination and will undergo review by the Academic Program Review Committee.

On balance, even in spite of the troubling matters that beset us, the University is in good shape. We have in place a plan that will allow us to address the chronic problems that face us. It is a plan that will allow us to focus our energies and resources on some programmatic areas that have the potential to enhance the overall academic reputation of the University. I regret the controversy that all of these changes produced and the pain it has caused. I can only do the best job I can of providing leadership for the institution as we try to find the best route through these troubled waters. As long as I am here, I will continue to do that and I ask for your support in that effort.

One of the things that all of us can do and should do is speak with a collective voice in Montgomery. We can make higher education a more powerful entity by joining the Higher Education Partnership. I have and I encourage you to do so.

Brown told faculty members that the Higher Education Partnership is a growing concern and he invited them to help out in what appears to be a continuing and never-ending battle in Alabama. The Partnership is an advocacy organization representing faculty, staff, students, alumni and other supporters of the states’ four-year public institutions. The Partnership’s aim is to create a network of supporters in order to keep attention focused on the work that we do for the state, and also build coalitions within the business and economic community.

The Partnership is already making its presence known. There are some analysts who say that we made a big difference in the gubernatorial race. We scheduled an education day in Montgomery last week that resulted in promises of more support from leaders of state government. Those promises will only be kept if we continue to grow and prove the truism that in Alabama, tightly focused and vocal advocacy groups can deliver votes. We are now in the midst of a membership drive spurred on by a promise from South Trust bank of $25,000 dollars if we can go to membership of 2,000 plus. The cost, one-dollar/month, is minimal and can be automatically deducted from payroll. Auburn needs strong representation from faculty and staff. Brown asked the faculty to join him, as well as other faculty and colleagues so that we can all make a difference in higher education in Alabama. Applications for membership were distributed to faculty members.

Questions for President Muse followed. Connor Bailey (Steering Committee) asked about the piece of legislation dealing with the selection process for the Board of Trustees. The particular item is listed under the heading of House Bill 308 and is being promoted by the group Auburn First. The bill, if approved in legislature and signed by the Governor is likely to go forward for the November election as well. If that happens, then there is a possibility that we would have an entirely new method for selection of the trustees. Is there any possibility that Governor Siegelman can be persuaded to desist from filling existing vacancies and soon to be vacancies, pending the outcome of this effort, so that the new process be put in place. This new improved process would allow for a screening committee (nominated by the Alumni Association), an election committee, and finally gratification by the senate.

Muse told Bailey it looks as though governor does not plan to do anything about board appointments until his lottery legislation has been dealt with. Muse anticipates that the lottery issue may be resolved fairly quickly. It was already passed by the House, and is currently being debated in the Senate. Once passed, Muse expects the Governor to nominate people to fill the board vacancies. He does not expect him to be persuaded to put these actions off. Muse told Bailey that the probability is low. Muse did talk to the Alumni Association leadership and suggested that they go before the Governor and ask if he is in support of the legislation, which he supposedly is, and if the Governor would be willing to go ahead and implement it in spirit this Spring. He could appoint a group to seek nominations and to have a more open process in selecting individuals to fill those positions. Muse is not aware if they had that discussion.

Y. El-Moghazy (Textile-engineering) asked if there was an equivalent plan to the one Muse discussed that would strengthen the weaker programs in the university. Otherwise, those programs are going to become weaker, and Auburn will end up as a seven-program university.

Muse said that the likelihood that Auburn will become a seven-program university is incontestable, but there may be a reduction in the number of programs that we offer. The university has to bring these weak programs to an acceptable standard, or look seriously at whether that program is central to the operations of the university. Auburn does not have adequate resources to adequately support all that it is doing. Muse thinks that the school can have a strong set of departments and programs that are focused on serving the needs of the state, and broader southern regions, but that do not aspire to be competitive nationally. But at the same time, Muse thinks there needs to be a few programs that rank in those top categories. Auburn can only afford a few programs that do, and that is what this strategy attempts to accomplish.

D. James (Geology) asked if there was ever a administrative violation system, and if so, would it be re-instituted.

Howze responded to that question. He said that there was a system, but it was judged to be deficient. (We) were in the process of putting another together, and then other things became of higher priority. It is something that should probably be worked on this year.

Copies of the Hudson’s report were provided to faculty members. Before starting, Hudson congratulated Jean Weese for completing her term as Senate Secretary, a very difficult and time-consuming position. Hudson said that last year he had suggested a restructuring of the position so that it might become less overwhelming.

Hudson recognized his fellow committee members who assisted in writing the report: E.M. Albrecht-Piliouni (English), M. Boudreaux (Pathobiology), G.L. Brown (Sociology), D. Drake (Career and Student Services) Y. El-Mogahzy (Textile Engineering), D. Fadool (Zoology), R. Herring (Payroll), M.A. Kunkel (Counseling), M. Olliff (Library).M. Solomon (Consumer Affairs).

In 1995, the subcommittee of the University Benefits and Insurance Committee made comparisons of the university benefits at the various state universities of Alabama. This year, the Faculty Welfare Committee took as their mission an update of this report in order to see how Auburn had fared over the past few years. Clearly, Auburn was seriously behind the other state universities in tuition waiver assistance to spouse and dependents. The committee’s other mission was a recommendation to the senate that a proposal be made to President Muse calling for a tuition waiver for spouse and dependents.

A subcommittee compiled data based on the results of the Wefare Committee’s canvasing of the other universities in the state. Subcommittee members included D. Drake, R. Herring and M. Oliff.

Results indicated that Auburn is behind other universities in the percentage of premium paid by the employer to the employee on insurance coverage.

On a good note, data showed that in 1995, no dental insurance plan was provided, but now there is an optional program that covers only preventive care at Auburn University.

Auburn has also improved in the area of tax-deferred annuities. In 1995, the university matched 3% of salaries, up to $18,000. Several other schools matched 5% and had with no caps. Auburn has since increased its percentage to 5%, but has retained a cap.

In the area of disability insurance, the university lags behind other schools. However, Auburn is the only school that has a short-term salary continuation. This means that (you) don’t have to be long-term disabled to receive salary continuation.

Regarding the issue of tuition waiver, the Trustees have voted that the tuition waiver for employees of the university no longer reduce with salary. In the past, the greater (your) income, the less (you) received in terms of tuition waiver.

Auburn remains the only institution in the state that gives no form of tuition waiver to spouse or dependents. Last week, Hudson presented a proposal to the senate that suggested a tuition waiver program for spouse and dependents that matched very closely the University of Alabama’s. The senate accepted the proposal, which will now be presented to the President.

In summary, Hudson remarked that there have been some improvements in benefits at Auburn in the last four years. Things are still not necessarily at the level where all are comfortable, but at least the university is headed in the right direction.

When I became Chair of the Faculty 12 months ago, our university had just been confronted with its latest crisis, another crisis manufactured by the Bobby Lowder clique on the Board of Trustees and predicated on a set of assumptions that were patently false. At the April 3, 1998 meeting of the Board, President Muse, with the assistance of the Executive Vice-President and the Provost, had presented an update of a Board-approved long-term strategic plan designed to enhance Auburn's academic programs and to maintain the University’s hard earned reputation for academic excellence. The plan called for raising revenues, reducing costs, phasing out non-viable programs and reallocating resources.

The President responded to Trustee critics who had charged that the University had done nothing to cut costs and to place the University on a firm financial footing. Noting the drastic cuts in state appropriations, the President provided details about cuts in programs and personnel that had been made to adjust to the new financial realities. He noted that there had been a balanced budget for each of the previous six years. His message was that while our University faced financial challenges in the coming years, a plan was in place to effectively deal with current and future financial realities.

The administration’s report was ignored. Trustee Robert Lowder and others opined that cuts had not been made and that they were prepared to make the hard decisions about what to cut.. The Board voted to establish a Commission to Review the Role of the University in the 21st Century. In spite of its high-sounding name. I believe that the intended function of the Commission was to be little more than a slash-and-burn operation designed to take away the role of the faculty and administration on issues related to academic programs and structure.

Also, I believe that the clique’s agenda included a nostalgic desire to return Auburn to its "glory" as a polytechnic institute of the 1950's. In their view, Auburn had lost its way. The administration had allowed the faculty to turn Auburn into a comprehensive research university. As Trustee Lowder or his ghostwriter wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education in 1992: "Some at Auburn apparently wish to see Auburn compete academically with Vanderbilt or Emory rather than serve the traditional land grant functions that Auburn has historically undertaken." And he described his critics in the faculty as those "who want desperately for Auburn to become a "Harvard of the South." Later he writes: "Indeed, I would suggest that for those for whom teaching at Auburn is a burden, there are other institutions in America whose missions may suit them better."

Thanks to the negotiating abilities of our President, the membership of the Commission included faculty and administrators. The President asked the Rules Committee of the Senate to select two faculty members to serve. The campus commissioners understood the need to work together. Prior to each Commission meeting, the campus representatives met to discuss what might happen at the upcoming meeting and what would be appropriate responses to anticipated issues. There were seldom disagreement about tactics or substance.

It is important to note that the very establishment of the Commission meant that university governance at Auburn had broken down. Auburn, like other good universities, has a tried and true way to make changes in academic programs. The Board choose to ignore this proven process. Fearing that the Board, with its five members on the Commission, would use the Commission to ram through ill-considered and damaging changes, the Senate undertook a number of activities to try to minimize the damage.

At the General Faculty Meeting a year ago, you approved a resolution that established a Task Force of faculty, administrators, staff and students from both the AU and AUM campuses. The purpose of the Task Force was to provide deliberate and informed counsel to the Commission. Not knowing the agenda of the Trustee Commissioners, it was difficult to write a charge for the Task Force. Once the Commission began to talk about restructuring, President Muse asked the Task Force to review the many proposals for reorganization and to recommend changes in our administrative structure. Professor Barry Burkhart and his tireless committee spent the Summer with this effort and did an

outstanding job. Barry held open meetings and tried to get input from all interested parties. We owe Barry and his committee much.

The Senate had already established the Program Review Committee chaired by Professor Drew Clark. The President charged this committee with reviewing the programs slated for elimination and providing him with recommendations about whether to eliminate or maintain the programs. Professor Clark and his excellent committee did an exceptional job and we owe them much.

When the task of identifying high priority programs became an agenda item for the Commission and the Board, the President asked the Rules Committee to name the faculty members to a University-wide Priorities Committee. The committee had only a couple of months to complete its work. A call went out for proposals. The committee then did its best to evaluate the programs and provide useful advice to the President.

Keeping the faculty and other interested parties informed about the work of the Commission was essential. The Senate leadership did several things to try to accomplish this. With the help of the local chapter of the AAUP, we established a Website where all of the documents of the Commission were posted and a listserv where faculty and others were free to comment on the work of the Commission. The AAUP chapter also sponsored an open forum where all of the Commissioners were invited to attend and most did. I bombarded you and your Senators with numerous email messages. Reports were made at each meeting of the AU Senate and the General Faculty. Our efforts at information were greatly aided by the outstanding coverage of the

Plainsman, the AU Report and the Alumni’s Auburn Magazine. I personally appreciated the exceptional editorials by Lee Davidson and the outstanding articles by Roy Summerford .

A crucial issue faced by the Commission at its initial meetings was whether or not to close the meetings. Wayne Flynt and I argued successfully for open meetings. You responded by attending in droves. Your presence was essential in keeping the process honest.

We also fought hard for public comment. Major changes were being proposed for our university, changes that would shape the character of Auburn and have long-lasting effects on your students and your careers. We felt it was important for you to have an opportunity to speak to the Commission. We were successful in getting two meetings set aside for public comments. Many of you came and made statements. Students spoke. Alumni spoke. You put faces on programs and made it difficult for Trustees to ignore the importance of what you do.

What was the outcome? Well, it wasn’t great but maybe it was not as bad as it would have been had you not been seen and heard. Personally, I think that we were much too quick to sacrifice programs, much too quick accept restructuring. I am far from convinced that many of the mergers and programs eliminations will be beneficial to the University. I doubt if they will save much money or improve the way we do things. I’m afraid that many of us felt that we had to offer the Board something, some sacrificial lamb in order to get them to drop the subject. I wish that we could have acted in a more deliberative manner and without the threat of the heavy boot of the Board poised and readied to stomp us. I wish that we would have forced the Board to show its hand before we showed ours.

I am certain that all of you know what happened at the Board meeting last Friday. Once again the Board ignored the judgement of the faculty and the recommendation of the President. Once again the Board engaged in inappropriate micro-management of the academic program. The Lowder clique said that it didn’t want to second guess a Dean. I wonder what would happen to a Branch Manager of a bank if he/she doubled-crossed the CEO at a meeting of the Board of Directors.

Of course, the best quote from the meeting had to do with the demolition of the Math Annex. President Muse indicated that he did not want to tear down the Math Annex until suitable office space could be found for the faculty and graduate students currently housed in that building. Trustee Lowell Barron responded that he wanted the building torn down and Auburn could house the faculty in tents. After all, the priority was to put a parking lot in place on the Math Annex before football season. I heard an unnamed administrator say that perhaps he could borrow some trailers for the faculty from Supt. Ed Richardson.

I would like to mention two other controversies that occurred on campus during my tenure as chair of the faculty, controversies that seemed to involve the heavy hand of the clique that runs the Board.

Once again, Auburn has experienced a series scandals having to do with Auburn’s athletic program. First there was the untimely "resignation" of the head football coach. Then there was cancellation of the Florida State University game. I believe that the mark of the Board is on both of these scandals. In Trustee Lowder’s Chronicle article, he wrote that "the board ... granted to the new president (Muse) enhanced authority over all matters related to athletics ... including the authority to hire and dismiss personnel." Well, who believes that President Muse had much to do with the demise of Coach Bowden? Formal authority is worth little where raw power can be used to force a coach to resign, forcing a coach to choose between receiving a generous golden handshake and walking away without anything. Any one who tells you Auburn’s sport program is not different that those at other Division I schools is wrong.

In January of this year, the Board for Student Communications, led by the SGA leadership and with a vote of 5 to 4, censured the Editor of the Plainsman. This was a clear threat to the First Amendment rights of the Editor. It should be noted that had one of the administrators on the Com Board voted against the censure, it would not have passed. None did. Another crisis, with extremely bad press for our University, had been created. As you know, the press around the state, region and even nation rallied to support the editor and the Alabama Press Association threatened to sue the University unless the stated threat to remove the editor was rescinded. Our own AU Senate passed

a resolution in support of the Editor and also called for the censure to be rescinded.

What terrible thing had the editor done that warranted the wrath of the Com Board? The

Plainsman had provided extensive coverage of the Commission and the athletic scandals. The editor had also dared to write editorials opposing actions of the Board and even asking Trustee Robert Lowder to quit the Board. She had also criticized the SGA leadership for its public support of Trustee Lowder.

What role did Trustees play in the Com Board action? Who knows for sure? What I do know is that at the January meeting of the Board, Trustee Paul Spina publicly chastised the Editor and praised the SGA leadership for its bravery for standing up for what was right. Board President Pro Tem W. J. Samford refused to recognize me for a response, in spite of the fact that Trustee Bessie Mae Holloway requested that I be heard. Let me make one thing clear. The only brave person in this sorry mess is Lee Davidson, the Editor of the Plainsman. She deserves our respect and our support.

I don’t want to belabor the point but I want to emphasize that I believe that a key thing that differentiates Auburn from a great university is the micro-management style of our Board. This is not a new development. Read Professor Wayne Flynt’s comments from the September 18, 1998 meeting the Commission. He notes that "Auburn University has been governed since the later 1970s by a conflict management style." He provides some detail of the destructive nature of the Board’s actions over the past twenty years. Professor Barry Burkhart’s columns in recent AU Reports make similar points.

If the Board should not be heavily involved in academic and personnel decisions, what should be Board by doing? I point you to the 1966 Joint Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities which was a joint effort between the Association of Governing Boards, the American Council on Education and the American Association of University Professors.

1.The governing board has a special obligation to ensure that the history of the college or university shall serve as a prelude and inspiration to the future.

2.The board plays a central role in relating the likely needs of the future to predictable resources; it has the responsibility for husbanding the endowment; it is responsible for obtaining needed capital and operating funds;

3.When ignorance or ill-will threatens the institution or any part of it, the governing board must be available for support. In grave crises it will be expected to serve as a champion.

And after noting that the Board is the final institutional authority, the document contains these statements:

4.The governing board of an institution of higher education, while maintaining a general overview, entrusts the conduct of administration to the administrative officers, the president and the deans, and the conduct of teaching and research to the faculty. The board should undertake appropriate self-limitation.

I had hope that my year as Chair of the Senate could have been spent dealing with a number of real problems that face our university. I had an active agenda. Needless to say, I never got to it. I apologize for that. What do I think are some of the major issues facing Auburn?

1.Auburn must do something about its poor numbers in the enrollment of African-American students and the employment of African-American faculty. Our numbers are far worse than those for our peer institutions in the South-East. We will never be a truly great university until this vestige from the past is buried once and for all.

2.Auburn needs to continue its efforts to make sure that there is equity in promotion and salary to make certain that there are no gender, racial, age or other biases.

3.Auburn needs to extend the model of shared governance to the College and

Departmental level. I know of too many situations where important decisions affecting

the academic program are being made solely by Deans and/or Department Heads.

4.Auburn has a class of faculty known as non-tenure track faculty. Colleagues in this category make important contributions to our university. However, this is not a homogeneous category and many that I have spoken with do not feel that they are really faculty. We need to review the category of non-tenure track faculty.

5.Auburn has far too many temporary faculty teaching in its academic programs. I understand all of the arguments about the need for flexibility and the assertion that tenured faculty don’t like to teach Freshman English. Nevertheless, you do not build a quality academic program with temporary and part-time faculty.

I would caution you that we should be vigilant in our efforts to protect tenure and academic freedom at Auburn. There is a move in the land to rid universities of tenure, the arguments being that tenure protects deadwood and is unfair to young faculty. These are false arguments. A seemingly less insidious effort is to institute post-tenure review which has been all the rage in state legislatures around the country. I shouldn’t have a hard time conniving this group about the importance of tenure. Auburn may hold the record for being in violation of the 1940 AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. The Auburn administration was censured in 1958 for firing a professor who wrote a letter to the Plainsman advocating the radical notion of integration. In 1973, we barely avoided censure by promising reform after having dismissed a faculty member with 11 years of service. Of course, there was a second censure in 1983 for again dismissing a faculty member with service beyond the probationary period. Finally, there was the case of Professor Charles Curran. At that time, the Montgomery Advertizer quoted R.C. "Red" Bamberg, a Trustee for 37 years, as saying, " "Academic freedom doesn’t mean much to me. I’m not concerned, and the average person in Alabama is not that concerned. Frankly, I don’t know what academic freedom is...If the man can’t into an organization, he ought to move on." Invited to replay, Professor Curran said simply, "the defense rests."

I would like to make comments about a couple of harmful faculty activities on campus: Harm and the self-proclaimed Auburn Guardian. Many of their attacks are personal and not issue based. It is one thing to disagree with someone on issues. It is quite another to defame their character and ascribe all sorts of unethical and immoral behavior to them. Secondly, their approach ignores the established mechanisms at Auburn for airing complaints and questioning administrative decisions. Faculty at Auburn have worked long and hard to institute the model of shared governance on our campus. While the current system is less than perfect, we ought to try to use it before we resort to guerilla tactics. The Guardian effort is particularly troubling since the members refuse to identify

themselves. Some real courage there.

Finally, I would like to thank a large number of people for their support, counsel and hard work during the last year. President Muse, Provost Walker, Vice-President Large and other administrators approached their dealings with the Senate leadership in an open and honest manner. My already enormous respect for each of them grew as we attempted to deal with the problems facing our University.

I appreciate all of the tireless work that former faculty leaders performed during the past year. Their capable leadership helped to minimize the damage caused by the intemperate Board actions. Their counsel helped to moderate my own proclivity for confrontation. Particularly, I would like to thank Sara Hudson, Charlotte Ward, Kent Fields, Barry Burkhart, Yvonne Kozlowski, Jennie Raymond, Gary Mullin and Gary Swanson. I owe these and other former leaders a debt of gratitude for their good deeds. Conner Bailey and Larry Gerber, who on a daily basis responded to my endless requests for advice and therapy, deserve special mention.

I would like to thank the present Senate leadership for their contributions. Jean Weese and Marica Boosinger not only performed the duties of Secretary and Secretary-Elect, but were also equal participants in key decisions. Herb Rotfeld, our parliamentarian, kept us all on target. And what can I say about Jo Heath? I can say that she will be an outstanding chair of our faculty. I’ve learned much from her. I call on all of you to give her your full support over the next year.

In closing, I would like to thank you the faculty. Being chair provided me with a wonderful and rare opportunity to get to know faculty across campus. It’s been a marvelous experience. I want you to know that I appreciate your every email, letter and phone call, the ones criticizing me as well as those supporting me. I appreciate your willingness to serve on committees. Hundreds of you attended Commission and Board meeting. Your presence was a mighty force that the Lowder clique had a hard time ignoring..

You the faculty are what makes Auburn a great University. You teach the courses, do the research and provide the outreach to our state, nation and world. You are Auburn University. Be tireless in the defense of our academic programs. Be deliberate in your participation in shared university governance. Be vigilant in the protection of tenure and academic freedom. We must refuse to accept the micro-management of the Board of Trustees.

Faculty acknowledged Howze with a standing ovation.

1. Presentation of the AAUP Academic Freedom Award: Yvonne Kozlowski

Kozlowski announced that this year’s academic freedom award was presented to Leigh Davidson, editor of The Plainsman. She is a senior majoring in journalism from Memphis, TN and has, as described by The Plainsman faculty advisor, "A puritan’s work ethic and a matador’s nerve." Kozlowski said that she certainly needed both to survive this year’s strains and stresses. On behalf of the AAUP, Kozlowski expressed deep appreciation for all of the hard-hitting and investigative reporting that she provided this past year. In many instances, The Plainsman materials were picked up and used by other newspapers because Davidson and her reporters invested so much time in attending Commission, Board and Task-Force meetings, with follow-up interviews of all parties involved. The extensive, fact-filled coverage contributed toward keeping Auburn students and faculty aware of on-going matters. It also served to make involved parties aware that their actions were subject to public purview, as well as to public comment. Davidson’s unflinching dedication to first amendment principles, and her refusal to back down under tremendous pressures has been an inspiration to us all. The AAUP wishes her success in her future career in journalism and congratulates her with the presentation of this award from the Auburn chapter of the AAUP.

On behalf of The Plainsman staff, Davidson thanked the AAUP for the award. She also thanked the Senate for passing the resolution in support of The Plainsman and first amendment rights.

Davidson said that the AAUP award was a direct reflection on the faculty, "the voice of the university." She encouraged participation in HEP.

Davidson stated that The Plainsman is just volume control, and that the faculty were the sources; they went on record, they gave us a chance to be professional journalists. And for that she is very thankful.

In addition, she mentioned that Howze had been the only one to mention Robert Lowder. She told faculty about an interview he gave to a writer from the Mobile Register. In reference to a rumor on campus, the interviewer asked Lowder if he would ever consider Lowder University instead of Auburn University. Lowder replied, "That’s funny, maybe we should change it to Lowder University, just for a day."

Though she told this story in a joking fashion, Davidson said it’s really quite serious. As evidenced by the cut in the PhD program in economics, this individual does have the power to micromanage this university; he holds the reigns for 20,000 strong and there is no excuse for that. She went on to thank the faculty for providing such a strong voice to The Plainsman. Without faculty input, said Davidson, The Plainsman would have been unable to write the articles that it did. Speaking on Muse’s address and the recommendation he made that was ultimately overruled, Davidson said that now is the time more than ever to stand together, to show who is in charge of this university, to show that it is more than one person strong.



2. Announcement of Election Results: Glenn Howze