Minutes

Auburn University Senate Meeting

10 November 1998
 

Broun Hall Auditorium


 

Absent: R. Burleson; A. Cook; R. Evans; D. Hendrix; J. Henton; D. Himelrick; R. Jaeger; D. Large; F. Lawing; A. Magg; H. Maraman; J. Melville; C. Moriarty; L. Myers ; J. Neidigh; D. Norris; J. Pritchett; R. Saba; S. Schneller; A. Tarrer; S. Tuzun; T. Tyson; D. Wilson;
 

Absent (substitute): G. Anderson (Stella Bentley); B. Ballon (C. Price); L. Bowey; (W. Stegall); J. Grover (D. Rouse); J. Hathcock (W.R. Brawner); D. Leonard (M. West); T. Martinson (R. Perritt); M. Runge (J. Novak)
 

Senate Chair Glenn Howze called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the previous meetings (September 6, 1998, and September 13, 1998) were approved as posted on the Senate Web Page.

Announcements:

A. President: Dr. William Muse
 

Recently, Dr. Muse has been devoting most of his attention on the preparation of recommendations to the Commission on the role of the University in the 21st century. This focus developed in response to the request that Muse specify what the University’s priorities will be over the next few years as well as identify programs and activities to be phased out as a means of helping finance the priority programs.
The full text including charts and appendices of Muse’s report to the Commission (presented last Friday, November 6, 1998) is available on the Commission Web Page. A text-only version is available on the Auburn University web page,

Muse said that he attempted to develop a plan that would allow the University to resolve the important problems it is currently facing, as well as position Auburn as a stronger and more focused institution in the years ahead. Muse believes the plan he presented to the Commission is a well-conceived and attainable one. It will allow the University to address the critical need of raising employee compensation to competitive levels, thus forestalling loss of talented faculty and staff. It will allow for the repair of facilities so as to provide students with the most modern and effective learning environment. It will also allow the University to elevate a few programs to an increasing national and international stature.

Muse’s plan demonstrates that the University can make these changes without having to depend on the State for significant increases in funding, and without excessively burdening the student body. In fact, Muse’s plan calls for lower rates of tuition increase over the next five years than has been the case for the past five years. The plan will require a significant internal reallocation of sources, which Muse believes can be done without causing great damage.

Muse has requested that the Academic Program Review Committee examine the ten academic programs that have been identified as candidates for termination before a final decision is made. Such review will allow for faculty input into this important matter.

Muse encouraged senate members to attend the public forum tomorrow (November 11, 1998 at 1 p.m., AU Hotel & Conference Center, auditorium) and offer advice on the matter.

R. Gandy (Physics) noted that Muse’s reorganization plan specified relocating the Geography department in the College of Science & Mathematics, but in Muse’s reallocation plan, the degree in geography has been identified as a candidate for termination. Gandy stated that the two components seem to be contradictory and asked whether the degree in Geography would be terminated.

Muse stated that if the Geography degree program is eliminated, Geography courses still will be offered in the newly combined department.

Supposing that a program identified for elimination is eventually sent back by the Program Review Committee for reconsideration, B. Burkhart asked whether the deans of that particular college will maintain the responsibility for coming up with reallocation funds.

According to Muse, the fairest way to deal with such a situation would be that the college involved take responsibility in identifying another low priority area of equal value to supply the funds. Muse said this doesn’t necessarily mean that another program has to be eliminated.


B. Senate Chair Report: Glen Howze
 

Auburn now has 75 members in the Higher Education Partnership (HEP). This is a several thousand percent increase in membership. Howze, though pleased, would like to see a further increase, preferably to several hundred to five hundred members. HEP membership will provide opportunities to voice opinions to a brand new administration in Montgomery. Applications for HEP membership were passed out during the current meeting. Howze has been appointed to the board for HEP. His appointment will stand for one year.

Howze welcomed the newly appointed senators to the meeting and asked them to stand. He also encouraged all senators to attend the aforementioned public forum meeting, Nov. 11.

In addition, Howze urged senate members who are interested in one or more of the ten programs targeted for elimination to attend the meetings of the Program Review Committee. Drew Clark (English), chair, has done an excellent job with the committee and Howze is certain he will do an equally good job with the present task.

Appointments to Senate Committees are complete and notification has been sent out.

On Nov. 19, the final meeting of Commission will take place. This meeting will begin at 1 p.m. and will also be held at the AU Hotel and Conference Center.

On Nov. 20 the Board of Trustees will meet to vote on recommendations of the Commission.


 

C. Commission Report: Barry Burkhart (representing Wayne Flynt)
 

The Commission moved to receive Muse’s report presented on November 6, 1998.

Howze expanded on Burkhart’s report by stating that the degrees of freedom that the Board members might have possessed have been greatly reduced in the last few meetings. The upcoming meeting (November 20) should be interesting and Howze encouraged Senate members to attend.


D. Provost’s Office: Dr. William Walker
 

Auburn University must fulfill a charge to increase the diversity of the student body and faculty. Auburn has worked diligently to do so over the last several years. Undergraduate minority representation has gone up, but it is still not as high as it should be. Progress has been made in recruiting minority faculty, but Auburn has not done a good job of recruiting and retaining minority faculty. In 1990-1991, there were 22 minority faculty on campus. That number increased to 37 in 1994-1995. Currently, in 1998-1999, there are 27 minority faculty on campus.

A reasonable excuse for this would be an economy that has not been conducive to retaining valuable faculty. This is still just an excuse, said Walker. He believes that increasing diversity is a high priority for the University, which currently does not reflect a population comparable to the diversity of the state in which [we] reside.

Consequently, Walker has charged each dean to charge their respective departments to generate plans and objectives for recruiting and retaining minority faculty.

Walker stated that increasing diversity is not only the right thing to do, but it is what [we] have been charged to do. If diversity does not increase, Walker can only speculate what will come down from the court. He stated that it is nothing he wants to see at this University. Plaintiffs have complained that we have not carried out the task that has been set out for us. Walker asked Senate leadership to form a committee that will sit with Walker and review plans and approve plans. Walker expects that plans will present an affirmative approach to the problem. Walker wants minority candidates identified and efforts made to recruit them.

R. Gandy (Physics) asked what the current status was on a previous program that called for the creation of a position should a minority candidate be identified.

Walker stated that there is a $150,000 account available for minority candidates. Also, he is not opposed to creating positions to accommodate minority candidates. He will do anything needed to make funds available to hire minority candidates.

U. Albrecht (mathematics) stated that the number of minority student Ph.D. candidates in certain areas is extremely small (around 1-2%). Because the funds to offer incoming minority students are limited, it is difficult for some departments to compete with other institutions.

R. Bartlett (Industrial Design) asked where this issue originated. Walker stated that the plaintiffs have complained that we are not meeting the directive detailed by the court.

The make up of this state is 27% African American and Auburn should strive to have a make up representative of this percentage.

M. Watkins (Philosophy) asked Walker to identify whether women were included in the term minority.

Walker stated that although there is equal concern in increasing the number of women on campus, no court order has mandated to do so.

After several more questions on the specific definition of the term minority, Walker clarified that the term minority refers to African American.


 

E. Resolution: Kent Fields

 
Copies of the resolution were passed out during the meeting. Fields acknowledged the sponsors of the resolution. They include all of the current members of Senate leadership, G. Howze, J. Heath, J. Weese, M. Boosinger. Nine former chairs; D. Rygiel, M. Solomon, G. Mullen, B. Burkhart, L. Gerber, Y. Kozlowski, K. Fields, J. Grover, G. Swanson.

G. Swanson made a motion to suspend the rules allowing Senate to vote on the resolution today, by way of secret ballot. The motion was seconded and then carried by hand vote.

The Senate floor was opened for discussion.

A motion was made, seconded and passed to amend the document by eliminating a particular paragraph from the resolution. Another motion was made, carried and accepted to merge two paragraphs of the resolution. The Senate voted by blind ballot to pass the revised resolution (57 in favor, 4 against.) The fully revised version of the resolution is available on the Senate Web Page.


Committee Reports:

A. Workload Policy: M. Boudreaux
 

Boudreaux expressed thanks to the Workload Policy Committee members: Tony Carey, Lee Evans, Jim Hairston, Ann Knipschild, Joe Perez and Jack Williams for their hard work in developing this document and worksheet. She also thanked U. Albrecht (mathematics) for his help.

This document was first presented to Senate in August 1998. At that time, senators were asked to take the document back to their respective departments and work through it, pinpointing problem areas, concerns and areas for improvement. In response to the considerable feedback the Committee received, certain changes have been made.

Before presenting her report, Boudreaux stated that the Committee would like to use this Workload policy document - if approved - for only one year. This would allow time for people to work through it and find out where problems are. The document would then be redesigned accordingly.

Boudreaux presented the following: Workload Document

She then displayed a sample worksheet, using the same professor as an example as in her August presentation. Calculations and data were entered using the revised stipulations. Boudreaux noted that the new figures were similar to those originally tallied in August, only these numbers implied different meanings.

Discussion from the senate floor covered a great deal of issues. Several senators felt that the document should not be introduced until the University switches to the semester.

Several senators were concerned with the standard hours listed for teaching-only working assignments for regular-title appointment faculty members. A. Dunlop (English) proposed an amendment that would change the 15 credit hours per term currently listed to 12 hours. The proposal was seconded and Senate carried the amendment by voice vote.

J. Heath (Chair-elect) proposed that any reference to a standard full-time teaching load be struck from the document.

After considerable debate on Heath’s recommendation, G. Hill (chemistry) proposed that the document be sent back to the Committee before any further amendments are made. The proposal was seconded and carried by voice vote.

C. Bailey (Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology) suggested that the Committee, upon revising the document, be sure to state in the document that it is to be used on a trial basis.


The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.