Senate Meeting
12 January 1999
Broun Hall Auditorium
Absent: K. Alley; T. Brower; R. Burrelson; A. Cook; R.L. Evans; D. Hendrix; R. Jaeger; M. Kraska; F. Lawing; A. Magg; C. M. Moriarty; L. Myers; J. C. Neidigh; J.T. Regan; L. Slaten; A.R. Tarrer; H. Tippur; B. Turner.
Absent (Substitute): L. Katainen (J. Madrigal); R. Middleton (D. C. Cobra); R. Miriarchi (M. Lisano); J. Novak (R. G. Nelson); D. Pugh (E. Belknap); R. F. Ripley (E. F. Johnson); M. West (D. Hankerson);
Senate Chair Glen Howze called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m.
The minutes of the previous senate meeting were corrected and approved as posted on the Senate web page.
Under the auspices of the Office for Governmental Affairs, (we) have just concluded a series of eight regional meetings with members of the Alabama legislature and members of the Auburn Legislative Action Network. These meetings were well attended and allowed us the opportunity to interact with our elected officials prior to the opening of the January 1999 legislative session. Muse specifically thanked Senate Chair Glen Howze for his attendance. In each of these meetings, (we) emphasized Auburn’s need for continued enhanced funding.
Muse commended Senate and Dr. Mary Boudreaux (Pathobiology) for their work on the Faculty Workload Policy. Muse said it was important that the University have such a policy and procedure. (We) know that all of our faculty work hard and long, but too many of our external constituencies tend to define our work only in terms of classroom instruction and do not understand or value the multiple roles performed. The proposed policy will go a long way toward documenting the various work assignments of each faculty member and toward improved understanding of how we achieve our overall mission.
On November 19, 1998, the Trustee-appointed Commission on the Role of the University in the 21st Century held its final meeting. At that time, they unanimously approved a set of recommendations that will enable Auburn to more fully address the problems that it is currently facing. Over the next five years, the measures recommended would permit us to bring average faculty salary by rank up to 100% of the regional average. It would also allow an increase in spending on deferred maintenance for buildings up to a rate of 10 million dollars annually, as well as an increase in departmental operating and maintenance budgets by 3% per year. In addition, it will allow the University to set aside money for the enhancement of selected academic disciplines that are designated as high priorities.
Accomplishment of these goals will require a tuition increase of approximately 6% per year, or a lower rate of increase should the state appropriation exceeds 1% per year; and a reallocation of funds from lower to high priority areas. The plan proposed calls for a full 2% per year to be reallocated from administrative areas, and a little over 1% to be reallocated from academic areas.
While the reallocation process created a fair amount of controversy, it resulted in a plan that is reasonable and attainable and is necessary to achieve the goals that were sighted earlier, such as raising faculty salaries to a competitive level. The areas that were recommended as high priorities or peaks of excellence warrant that designation. But there are other areas that could receive such status. Therefore it is intended that a process for reviewing other areas for possible inclusion in this opportunity for enhancement funding will be afforded on an annual basis.
While the Commission, the Trustees who appointed it, and the administrators who tried to respond to its demands have been targets for considerable criticism, Muse believes that the final result is a positive one for the university. When the Commission’s recommendations are adopted by the Board of Trustees, and implemented by the faculty and administration over the next five years, Auburn will have positioned itself to be much more competitive on faculty salaries and to have considerably enhanced facilities.
The process was hurried at times, but faculty input was sought whenever possible and whenever appropriate. The recommendations for restructuring were reviewed by a task force comprised of faculty, administrators and students from both campuses. Similarly, a committee comprised of faculty members and administrators reviewed the recommendations for high priorities. All of the degree programs identified as candidates for termination have been deferred to the Program Review Committee. No action will be taken until that committee has completed its review later this spring.
At the November 20, 1998 meeting of the Board of the Trustees, the Commission was disbanded and its recommendations accepted. In order to allow Trustees who did not serve on the Commission enough time to review the recommendations, official approval of the report has been delayed until a subsequent meeting. Muse anticipates the Board will approve these recommendations at its January meeting.
Muse believes that if you can see the changes recommended in a broad perspective, you can understand how they can make Auburn a stronger, more competitive and more effective university in the 21st century.
Howze announced that Dr. D.L. Large (Executive Vice president) had informed him that the Democrats will have control of the state senate. Sen. Lowell Barron, an Auburn Trustee, will serve as President Pro Temp of the Senate.
On Friday, January 22, there will be Board of Trustee meeting at AUM. Please attend if possible. The main item on that agenda will be the reconsideration of the recommendations of the Commission. Both a copy of the action item going to the Board and a summary of the recommendations are posted on the Commission web page.
On January 7 a controversy developed on our campus regarding a meeting of the Board of Student Communications. At this meeting, action was taken to censure the editor of The Plainsman. It was a strongly worded censure essentially stating that if she did not alter her editorial behavior, other actions would be taken.
A number of faculty members contacted Howze expressing their concern and several indicated that they would like to bring forth a resolution having to do with The Plainsman. That resolution will be considered next on the agenda.
A team from Phi Beta Kappa will be on campus this week. Auburn’s chapter has been seeking recognition for some time. Hopefully, they will be approved this time and will gain recognition.
The Program Review Committee has an active agenda for the next few months. The Committee, chaired by Dr. Drew Clark (English) will be reviewing programs currently targeted for termination.
The Workload Policy, which has been revised since the November 1998 Senate meeting, is back on the agenda. Howze would like to see it pass today so as to forestall the possibility of any document or policy being imposed on Auburn by the Alabama Commission on Higher Education. The intention is to bring forward this policy to seek approval, then to place it in effect on a trial basis for one year. After one year, it would return to a committee for further review.
The motivation behind presenting this resolution developed from the fact that quite a few members from Thomas’ department (Textile Engineering), as well as faculty in general were upset about the previous actions of the Board of Student Communications. Personally, Thomas said that this resolution has nothing to do with the items that were being investigated. Thomas stated that this resolution does not intend to be any comment on any personality, but rather on freedom of the press and freedom of one’s ability to express opinions at a university as well as a public environment. Thomas believes that the Board’s actions were not consistent with the policy of free press and free speech in a democratic society.
To see a copy of the RESOLUTION Click here.
Thomas moved for the adoption of this resolution.
G. Swanson (Immediate Past-Chair) moved to suspend the rules so that this resolution may be adopted today.
C. Bailey (Steering Committee) seconded the motion to suspend the rules.
Motion to suspend the rules carried by voice vote.
U. Albrecht (Mathematics) seconded the motion to adopt the resolution.
D. Himelrick (Horticulture) asked why the Board of Student Communications censured the editor.
Howze stated that the Board’s argument was that The Plainsman was in violation of public rule.
Will Stegall, (SGA President) co-author of the resolution to the Board of Student Communications stated that he would be willing to answer any questions regarding the resolution.
Stegall stated that the entire Board of Student Communications and everybody that voted to adopt the resolution that passed would proudly stand by the freedom of speech and press as they are fundamental to a free university in a democratic society. But that is not what this resolution was about, but rather policies that were signed to agree to abide by.
In response to Stegall, Thomas said that objections were raised because everything that was published in The Plainsman; those who were questioned; and the issues that were raised were presented in a way that the parties who were under question had ample opportunity to answer any questions or allegations. However, they consistently refused to do so. The editor and staff only printed what was allowed and did not print any falsehoods and where any allegations went unanswered, the facts apparently spoke for themselves, or the parties were not interested enough in the issue to answer.
Stegall stated that Thomas’s point was a good one, but that this is not what is being addressed in the resolution. Stegall said that there is one rule that possibly is being misinterpreted -- on the last violation cited in the board of student communications. Stegall read the policy from the Board of Student Communications, "In any news story, column or editorial involving criticism or implications against members of its staff, student body or faculty, the individual involved will be given opportunity to state his or her position. Their statements will be included, if possible, in the particular news story or editorial, or in a separate news story or editorial in the same issue of the paper."
That does not imply that they have to allow Robert Lowder an opportunity to respond. Stegall recognizes that The Plainsman did offer Lowder this opportunity and that he refused it. That specific "whereas" clause refers to a situation in the November 19, 1998 issue of The Plainsman, in which it accuses the SGA of being "bought and paid for too by Lowder" and others. That was criticism implicated and no member of the SGA was given the opportunity to state their opinion in that same issue.
Susan Brinson (Communications) first said that the vote taken at the Comm Board was largely drawn across student and faculty lines. All of the faculty representatives, with the exception of D. Housel (Athletics), who had to leave the meeting early, and one student on the Board voted against the resolution. All those who voted for the resolution were students.
Brinson stated that, with all due respect, what is happening here is that (you) are attempting to punish the editor for things that she wrote that you disagree with. What (you) are attempting to do to is prevent her from publishing again because you don’t like what she published in the first place. That is a clear example of censorship. Brinson believes that faculty should take a strong stand against censorship on this campus.
Stegall responded that Brinson’s comments were absolutely false. (We) are not saying that you cannot present certain editorial view or comment or be any less hard-hitting, we are just saying that you have to abide by the rules before you do it. This is not an attempt to say we want you to say what we think, or that we want you to do any more than what you agreed to do when you decided to run for the office.
M. Boudreaux (Pathobiology) stated that rules were clearly broken this summer in a series of Plainsman articles that slammed the Vet School. Students wrote back their opinions of what was printed, but those letters were never printed. Only letters supporting the editor were printed. This is evidence that this has gone on before. Boudreaux was informed that the editor was a different editor than at present, but this must be common policy, because it is happening again.
J. Madrigal (Foreign Languages) asked Stegall how many times they have censured somebody or is it just a coincidence that Lowder is always the one that seems to be involved in such situations. Madrigal stated that he is originally from Cuba and knows what censorship is, and what has happened is a clear case of censorship. The Senate needs to take a strong stand, said Madrigal, because in the thirty years since he has been at Auburn, this has never happened.
Stegall responded by stating that the Comm Board is not saying that you can not criticize. Since Stegall’s involvement with the Comm Board, this is the first time he has seen censorship or reprimanding of any publication leader, and as far as he knows, this could be the first time.
Madrigal asked why the Comm Board did not take action after the Vet School incidence.
Stegall responded that if you reprimanded somebody every single time they broke the rules, you would be wasting time, but this has become consistent behavior and that is when appropriate action should be taken.
Comments were made throughout the auditorium. Howze called the meeting back to order and reminded Senate members to state their name before speaking. He also noted the rule that people can only speak twice on an issue, but made an exception in this case for Stegall.
H. Rotfeld (Marketing & Transportation) stated the following observation: The Comm Board student members are also members of SGA and the SGA leadership. The Comm Board is saying (we) don’t like the way you talked about us -- this is the basis of the censure and that is why Rotfeld finds it offensive. If the censure related to an area that didn’t involve (you) personally, that might be a different matter -- Rotfeld is fully in favor of this resolution.
The vote was then cast for adoption of the resolution. The resolution carried by Division of the House, with 60 in favor and 4 opposed.
Committee Reports:
Boudreaux first made an announcement for the Faculty Welfare Committee, of which she is a member. The committee is developing a proposal to try to bring to the Senate in a few months concerning tuition assistance to dependents and spouses of faculty and staff. A survey will go out via e-mail to Senators. Hopefully, this survey will then continue on to faculty and staff. This short survey will serve to document what the impact of tuition assistance would be on campus and how many people might be willing to participate with dependents or spouses in the next five years. Please take part in this survey and see that it gets back to Boudreaux or C. Hudson (Finance), committee chair. Also, please make sure that all staff members without access to e-mail have an opportunity to complete the survey as well.
Boudreaux thanked Tony Carey, Lee Evans, Jim Hairston, Ann Knipschild, Joe Perez and Jack Williams for their hard work in developing this document and worksheet.
After presenting the document and worksheet at the November 1998 meeting, a proposal was made to use contact units instead of contact hours. Senate also voted to change 15 credit hours to 12 credit hours as workload for a full-time faculty member. The items were then sent back to a committee for revision.
The Workload Policy statement has been revised as voted upon by the Senate at the last meeting. 15 credit hours have been changed to 12 credit hours. The worksheet has also been revised to reflect the change to contact units or equivalencies as Boudreaux proposed at the November meeting. The idea behind changing contact hours to units or equivalencies was to make the worksheet a better instrument for documenting faculty workload in a diverse environment. The contact unit’s equivalency value for full-time faculty member is proposed to remain at fifteen units per term. Also, to make the math required to complete the worksheet easier, those areas that originally required dividing by a decimal have been changed to multiplying by fifteen.
The Committee would like the worksheet to be used on a trial basis for one year, from Spring quarter 1999 until spring quarter 2000. During spring 2000, Senators should bring back suggested changes to the Senate. At that time, Boudreaux foresees a committee being formed to look at recommended changes. This committee will ready the document for the semester transition and at the same time, incorporate the changes that the Senate would like to see made.
Boudreaux passed around examples of the newly revised workload assignment worksheet. Prior to the meeting, written copies of the policy were also distributed. Boudreaux then led Senators through the procedure of filling out the sample worksheet.
Boudreaux believes the Senate should vote to adopt the document and worksheet for the following reasons. The documents give credit for all activities performed by Auburn’s diverse faculty, not just teaching. The worksheet is simple and straightforward. The documents will be used for a one year trial period after which changes can be made. Lastly, an alternative to the documents could be an ACHE designed one in which the prototype would not be based on a research institution.
A motion was made to adopt the Workload Policy document and worksheet.
C. Bailey (Steering Committee) raised a question regarding the second to last paragraph in Section II.C. Bailey expressed a concern that senior faculty members who have developed research programs might find themselves privileged by the wording to get out from under teaching obligations to maintain research productivity. This would be done at the expense of junior faculty who will be given heavier teaching loads and thereby will be disadvantaged in trying to meet tenure promotion criteria.
In response to Bailey, a friendly amendment will be made to include the phrase "Junior faculty may also be allotted a lighter teaching load to allow them time to develop their research programs."
S. Villaume (Curriculum and Teaching) stated that internships in her department were particularly labor intensive. The reading in Attachment A, Section III.A. details a maximum of .5 contact units, (an hour and a half actual time). Because driving time for internships can easily exceed this limit, Villaume asked how departments should handle this.
Boudreaux said that the limits stated in the document are default settings only, and if departments need to change them, they should attach justification.
C. Johnson (Communication Disorders) asked how the document applied to summers. In some departments, less money is available every year. Some departments pay on a per course basis, or if you are a senior level professor with a large salary, you are granted most of the money, despite the fact that if you are a professor at mid level, you are receiving less than minimum wage for a course. There are a lot of abuses in the summer system that Johnson believes to be unfair. She asked how this document would address those problems to nine-month faculty in departments that have regular summers if they are not counting seminar, clinic, as well as other activities. Johnson stated that such faculty members are expected still to work a regular quarter, yet the money they receive is less than 50% of their salary.
Boudreaux suggested that departments in such situations compress all activities in that nine- month area to ensure that you get credit for those activities.
U. Albrecht (Mathematics) raised an additional concern regarding the second to last paragraph of Section II.C., more specifically the sentence regarding reduced loads for highly recognized research. Albrecht suggested the sentence read ‘"…an individual whose research has produced an internationally recognized body of work and/or has obtained external funding support may be assigned to teach one or two courses per term,"’ in order to avoid danger of placing more pressure on faculty to obtain external funding.
In response to Albrecht’s suggestion, a friendly amendment will be made.
C. Bailey (Steering Committee) made two additional editorial suggestions. First: In Attachment A, Section II.A, Classroom Instruction definition; Bailey suggested removal of the first sentence, "The scholarship of teaching has the highest faculty priority."
Second: In Attachment A, Section III.D, second to last paragraph; Bailey stated that because experiment station research projects are quite specific the third to last sentence should be modified to read "Research assignments for the individual faculty members not holding an experiment station appointment shall be stated in general terms."
Boudreaux informed Bailey that she has made that insertion.
Adoption of the proposal was then made. Senate carried the adoption by voice vote.
In January 1998 the Rules Committee of the Senate appointed the Academic Program Review Committee. The Review Committee’s first charge was to review of a set of 41 programs which fell below 75% of ACHE viability targets for the period covered by the Alabama statute 1991-1996. The committee did so and then brought recommendations to then Provost Paul Parks. Subsequently, those recommendations were carried through.
A more recent charge has since been mandated to the Committee. Pursuant to his recommendations to the Trustees, President Muse has asked the committee to examine ten degree programs or program options that had been proposed by the deans of the various schools and colleges for phase out or merger. Further, President Muse has asked the committee to review programs in question of their terms of viability (number of graduates/year when compared with ACHE viability standards), their quality and their centrality. More specifically, Muse asked the committee not to take a thorough economic analysis of the consequence of possible phase-outs or mergers.
The Committee reluctantly accepted the charges and on Dec. 2, 1998, adopted the following review procedures. They have requested and will review materials submitted by the deans to Provost Walker as part of the reallocation study undertaken in fall quarter 1998. They have requested and will be given further copies of remarks made in support of these ten programs and options at Nov. 11 1998 commission meeting. They have asked the deans of the four colleges affected (Business, Education, Engineering and Liberal Arts) to submit a brief statement of the rationales that govern their recommendations to President Muse.
The Committee intends to offer each of the four deans the opportunity to meet with them for follow up discussion and questions during the spring quarter. Because the Committee believes that this process be objective, fair and balanced, they have also invited appropriate department heads, chairs or program coordinators to submit brief statements in support of retaining these programs in their current form. The Committee will also offer department heads, chairs or program coordinators the chance to meet with the Committee.
The Committee fully intends to meet the April 2, 1999, deadline.
Faculty members of the committee are K. Alley (Sociology and Anthropology), Y. Brady (Fisheries and Allied Aqualculture), A. Chappelka (Forestry), M. Hein (Building Science), J. Rogers (Mathematics), S. Silvern (Curriculum and Teaching), D. Sollie (HDFS), D. Clark (English). Administrative members are M. Moriarty (V.P. Research), J. Pritchett (Associate V.P. for Academic Affairs and Dean of Graduate School) and D. Wilson (V.P. Outreach).
If people would like to contact the Committee, they may do so in writing either to the address 9030 Haley Center; or via e-mail at ClarkJ3@mail.auburn.edu.
At present, there are no plans for open meetings. It may be possible that those with reason to address the Committee may attend part of the meeting and exchange dialogue with members. They will be thanked for their presence and then asked to leave before deliberations begin. Clark stated that these decisions were not easy to make. A meeting of the Academic Review Committee is scheduled for Friday, Jan. 15, and further meetings will be held on a weekly basis.
Overall, the AU Scholarship Committee has made considerable progress. In 1997-1998, $2.5 million was awarded to 1,500 students (as of 8/98.) In 1998-1999, an increased $3.3 million was awarded to 2,200 students.
In 1997-1998, there were 24 Merit Scholar acceptances. In 1998-1999 there were 32. This figure compares with 42 acceptances at the University of Alabama (as stated by newspapers.)
The 1998-1999 acceptance ratio of full tuition versus $1,000 scholarships was 46% to 32%. Acceptance of Freshman Academic Scholarships (selected by Scholarship Committee) was at 50%.
Administrative members of the committee are: S. Allen, F. Bobo, and K. Storey. Faculty members are M.A. Simon, F. Woods, S.H. Bannon, D.B. Morton, R.H. Jensen and C.S. Sankar. Student members are B. Chapman, C-W Tzeng and A. Barnes.
Merit Monday will be held February 15, 1999. Approximately 825 invitees have been selected for Freshman Academic Scholarships. This year, a Parent’s Program will be introduced. The student program will be similar to the one held in 1997-1999. Involvement from departments has been requested. Last year, 30 minute classes for invitees were held in the departments of Business, Architecture, Physics, and Biology.
Please call S. Allen (x4246), C.S. Sankar (x6504) or the committee if you have suggestions or comments. The committee web page address is: www.auburn.edu/scholarship.
S. Allen requested that comments be made as soon as possible.