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

The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as posted on the Senate web page.

1. President: Dr. William Muse

Muse provided a brief report on the government’s activities in Montgomery. The budget that was announced last week by the governor is the best recommended for higher education in five years. The proposed budget calls for an increase of 5.78% for higher education and for each of the individual four-year institutions.

Muse stated that (we) would need about 40% of that increase to cover the cost of our contribution to the retirement system for each employee. The budget will also provide significant support toward the goals that were approved by the Trustees at the last meeting. These include raising salaries to a more competitive position (expected recommendation to the Trustees will call for a salary increase of 5%), increasing our operating budgets by 3% and increasing expenditures for deferred maintenance and program enhancement.

The proposed budget still has to go through several steps, including consideration by the House and Senate, during which modifications will likely be made.

Unfortunately, the current problems in the Senate threaten to either disrupt or cannibalize this legislative session. Under the Constitution, once the Senate opens for business, they have to meet every day to see if they have a quorum which then counts as a legislative day. The legislature is only entitled to thirty days in a legislative session. As of today they will have used up 8 of those days and if things continue the way they are currently, the session will terminate on March 31^st. If termination occurs with no action taking place, then the Governor will be forced to call a special session to consider the budget and the lottery legislation. There was expected to be a ruling this afternoon by a circuit judge on this dispute, but it is also anticipated that this decision will be appealed to the state Supreme Court, so it is not clear at this point when and how that issue might be resolved.

Muse also announced that the Board of Trustee meeting originally scheduled for March 12 has been postponed until April 9. Postponement will allow for additional time to prepare items for consideration by the Board.

2. Provost: William Walker

First, Walker discussed the minority faculty initiative. He said that they have received plans from the various colleges and departments concerning their plans on how to address the issues of increasing diversity among faculty. These plans are currently under review by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Status on Racial Minority. Walker will use the Committee’s recommendations to determine what action he will take on those plans. Walker said he is very pleased with the attitude of the faculty toward this matter. Since September 1, nineteen offers have been made to individuals for tenure track positions, and three of those have been to minorities. Although that figure is not great, Walker stated that we are currently giving serious consideration to seven additional minorities.

The search for the dean of the College of Liberal Arts has been restarted.

R. Brinker (Dean of Forestry) has been appointed to chair the search for the Dean of Architecture, Design and Construction. That committee has not yet been formed.

Also, the search for the director of the Honors Program is underway or will be getting underway shortly.

3. Senate Chair: Glen Howze

There is a search committee underway for the position of provost. Some members have been appointed. R. Kunkel (Dean, School of Education) will serve as chair. Senate appointed members are H. Harper (Pharmacy), S. Stevenson (Nursing), M. Boosinger (Library), S. Williams (Architecture), J. Raymond (Business), M. Solomon (College of Liberal Arts), J. Heath (COSAM). The remaining members were appointed by the President’s office.

The Rules Committee has appointed a nominating committee for new officers to the Senate. It is chaired by the immediate past chair of the senate, G. Swanson (Physics).

Speaking on behalf of the committee, Swanson stated that their job is not complete due to several people declining their offers, all with claims of being too busy. Please contact G. Swanson if you would like to make suggestions for nominations.

Howze stated that he e-mailed everyone in the Senate a document which is the first in a series of governmental affairs reports compiled by our representatives in Montgomery.

Governmental Affairs Council Update

The nominations for the Rules Committee will take place at the April 13, 1999, meeting. The only requirement for a nomination is that you are a current senator.

It is possible that the governor will be at the next Board meeting, April 9, 9 a.m. in Foy Union.

C. Bailey (Steering Committee) announced that the AAUP will host an open forum on April 1, 1999, in Tichenor 206 at 4:00 p.m. The scheduled meeting pertains to the Board of Trustees and the process for selecting its members.

B. Mitchell, who runs the governmental affairs office in Montgomery, recently contacted Howze about the possibility of holding an open forum on the subject of the state lottery. As many of you are aware, the governor has proposed a lottery for the state that will potentially benefit higher education - not directly effecting the institutions, but the students choosing to attend. Howze stated the governor was able to convince the counsel of college presidents to support the idea of bringing the lottery to a vote by the people.

B. Burkhart (psychology), L. Gerber (History), J. Denson (Board), T. Little (Senator) will be at the AAUP forum to discuss current legislation that may be acted on in the senate that will alter the process in selecting members of the board. The governor will be selecting 6 new members to the Board of Trustees, therefore the question of the process of selection is important to us all.

1. Faculty Salary Committee: Larry Gerber

Before Gerber gave his report, he stated that this report is intended as a progress report only and that no formal recommendations have been made. The report deals with two main issues – equity and pay issues as they relate to semester transition.

Gerber informed the senate that the university has hired a consultant to study equity issues. Their findings will be shared with his committee prior to its making a recommendation, hopefully within the next month. If you have input on how you think equity should be determined, please contact committee members with in the next couple of weeks. R. Mirarchi (Zoology), D. Devries (Fisheries), M. Robinson (Building Science), W. Walker (Provost), D. Large (Executive Vice-president), S. Lowther (Planning Analysis).

Salary Issues Relating to Semester Conversion

J. Heath (COSAM), chair-elect, noted that the proposed scheme results in one more paycheck for that year, resulting in increased taxes and asked if there was any way pay could be delayed until January 1st as opposed to December 31^st as a means of offsetting this result.

Gerber said that this particular issue was raised in early discussions. The only alternative option would have delaying pay until the end of September. This would have resulted in new faculty members going without pay for six weeks following their start period, or continuing faculty who hadn’t taught during the summer going without a paycheck from June until the end of September. This alternate means of pay was less attractive than the one chosen.

Gerber stated that the terms listed for summer pay are specific for that quarter. He believes that there are larger issues concerning summer pay and suggested the formation of a committee to examine how summer faculty are being paid.

Howze added that all committee meetings at Auburn are open. He will notify senate members of the next Faculty Salary Committee meeting. Last year there were a number of people who were unhappy about the equity issue and it might suit them to attend the next meeting.

2. Academic Standards Committee: Sadik Tuzun

Tuzun recognized his fellow committee members for their contributions: M.M. Cameron, J. Dane, C.J. Ellison, J. Fletcher, L.B. Gladden, L. Glaze, G. Hill, B.J. Liddle, R.D. Locy, S.L. Oswald, S.I. Spencer, W. Walker, J.R. Wall, R. Zee. He also thanked S. Huddle for his input.

Before giving his report, Tuzun shared some personal thoughts. Tuzun believes that Auburn is going in the right direction and that AUM will keep up with its peers in certain areas. However, he believes that we can not have excellency in everything.

He stated that he had several concerns. The first dealt with a recent article written by M. Edmonds, a student, and published Thursday, Jan. 28, 1999. Tuzun was particularly affected by her comment, "I feel cheated at the end of each quarter when I am filling out teacher evaluations and I come to the question ‘To what degree did the teacher stimulate your teaching’ and I can not think of any way that I have been truly challenged."

Tuzun said these remarks sadden him and he is currently in the process of forming a sub committee to look into issues related to education in detail at Auburn University.

Also, Tuzun is concerned about the group HARM, claiming that "these people don’t have a clue about what is going on at this university." Although Tuzun doesn’t agree fully with what the administration has done, he is proud that they have opened up all of their meetings for input and also formed a program review committee, chaired by D. Clark. Tuzun believes HARM’s accusations are an insult.

Currently, the Academic Standards Committee meets Mondays at 4:30, Haley center 2011. All are welcome and the committee is always seeking input. This document was accepted at the last meeting and the appropriate changes were made. Tuzun moved for adoption of the revised content and requested that editorial comments and suggestions be made at a different time.

Academic Standards

Discussion followed and the Senate approval of the document carried by voice vote.

Tuzun then made a motion to adopt the board’s policy on free transfer between Auburn and AUM that was discussed at the last senate meeting. He stated that this policy gives us the flexibility that we want, as well as what the Board and the administration want.

Flexible Enrollment Policy

Tuzun made a motion to adopt the policy.

Discussion followed.

A revision was made to the wording in the last paragraph, per the request of G. Swanson, immediate past chair.

M. Watkins (Philosophy) asked if the senate was voting on the actual document or the proposal contained within it.

Howze stated that the vote pertains to the action item stated in paragraph 4.

Approval of document carried by voice vote.

Tuzun closed by saying that the committee is now looking into issues on correspondence courses and also issues related to academic standards.

3. Senate Ad-Hoc Committee to Study Career Ladders for Non-Tenure Track Faculty: Dr. Jo Heath

First M. Boudreaux (Veterinary Sciences), speaking on behalf of the Welfare committee, read a resolution supporting the Ad-Hoc Committee career ladder proposal:

Whereas instruction is one of the three missions of Auburn university, and

Whereas core courses are of paramount importance to this institution, and

Whereas most of these courses are taught by non-tenure track faculty in some departments on campus which would not be able to operate without the non-tenure track faculty, and

Whereas in these departments the work of the non-tenure track faculty enables the tenure track faculty to devote themselves to research and extension, the other two missions of Auburn University, and

Whereas the AAUP has communicated that they will accept the system which would impprove the position of the non-tenure track faculty as long as academic freedom is preserved, be it therefore,

Resolved that the Faculty Welfare Committee at Auburn University recognizes the importance of the non-tenure track faculty at Auburn and supports the career ladder proposal prepared by an Ad Hoc university committee formed with the encouragement of the Provost’s office. This proposal would provide current and future non-tenure track faculty with recognition, job security and compensation corresponding to their enormous contribution to the efficiency and success of this university.

Heath began her report by saying that the goals of this committee were to infuse rationality into the non-tenure track faculty situation, especially in regard but not limited to instructors, it is for almost all non-tenure faculty.

This proposal is to provide career ladders for all types of non-tenure track faculty. One important concern is the institution’s incentive toward excellence, especially for the instructors. For non-tenure track faculty, their current career ladder offers a few years of full-time work followed by forced conversion to part time. In addition to a partial paycheck, part time employment provides no health insurance and few professional courtesies.

Heath then stated the question, "Why can’t we offer non-tenure track faculty better?" The reason is due to the AAUP. This organization has officially in their redbook endorsed only that all faculty should be tenured and requested that non-tenure track faculty earn defacto tenure if they teach full-time for more than six years. Auburn’s handbook supports this request. Now the AAUP recognizes that non-tenure track faculty exist.

While working on this proposal, the committee negotiated directly with E. Benjamin, an expert on non-tenure track positions, from the National Headquarters of the AAUP.

Why are non-tenure track instructors here to stay, Heath asked. Because they teach more and they cost less. They are not required to do research and they are not required to have a doctoral degree. Many tenure faculty prefer to teach upper level courses and if all instructional faculty in a department are tenured there is no way to accommodate for reduced funds or reduced enrollment.

The key features of the auxiliary non-tenure track positions include requirement of faculty vote within department or unit at hiring and at promotion time; probationary period during the first six years; and a campus wide promotion committee.

In order to protect academic freedom, the AAUP suggested caps for auxiliary instructors (15%-25%). The denominator for these figures would be the sum of tenured, tenure track and auxiliary. 25% of that is the maximum amount you can have in the auxiliary in the event that you teach any of the core courses. If your department is not involved in the core then your maximum is 15%.

Currently, non-tenure track instructors are temporary or part-time, faculty vote is not needed for hire or promotion and there are no caps. An example of this can be seen in the English department where more than 53% are non-tenure track faculty.

With auxiliary positions, teachers will have opportunity for a full time position with better incentives for excellence, faculty vote is needed and there are caps. There is also block seniority (if faculty has to be reduced, probationary auxiliary faculty has to be let go before those who’ve been promoted once). And there is a three year rehire rule – if you do let them go and if within the next three years you want to refill that position you must first offer that position to the person you let go.

Heath made a motion to accept this proposal.

The floor opened for discussion.

M. Watkins (Philosophy) asked why this proposal does not give caps for non-tenure track faculty, but only for auxiliary faculty.

Heath responded by saying that the steady state should be that the auxiliary positions will push out the non-auxiliary track faculty because there will be an incentive to have more tenure track positions in order to be able to have more auxiliary positions.

The department head along with permanent faculty would decide how many of their temporary faculty would be offered these auxiliary positions. Those offered auxiliary positions would have the option to decline or accept.

Howze asked what this proposal would solve for us.

Heath stated this would offer some hope of a permanent position with incentive for excellence. Also, over the long run there should be more auxiliary faculty and fewer temporary faculty.

J. Hansen (Physics) asked how we can continue to argue that teaching and research are synergistic if we have a significant number of officially recognized permanent full time faculty.

Heath said that we all agree that the best situation would be that all are tenured and involved in research, but it is just not going to happen. Auburn is not a rich university and there is no way to lower the number of faculty we have.

A. Dunlop (English) stated that this proposal has been a matter of great concern in the English department because there is a greater number of temporary faculty then permanent faculty. He said that (we) all are sympathetic with the motives of the proposal and admire the work that went into this, but the department has examined this and the bulk of us are very strongly against it. If (we) are going to defend our identity as a research university, there are problems in employing a large number of faculty members with different standards.

Heath told Dunlop that this was the purpose of the proposed caps. If this proposal is turned down, it does not mean these temporary faculty will go away.

T. Madrigal (Foreign Languages) said that 25-30 years ago his department was full of instructors who didn’t have degrees in the field. He said that it took thirty years to get out of that mess and he is not in support of the proposal.

U. Albrecht (Mathematics) agrees that there is a strong connection between teaching and research, but in some classes, this is not the case. In Albrecht’s department, research itself has absolutely no bearing on those courses that will be taught by auxiliary or by non-tenure track faculty, and in most other departments this is probably the case too. However he said, what is important in regard to these classes is that those who are teaching them be dedicated to teaching. They must be dedicated in helping the student and providing the student with the knowledge for the more advanced courses in which they will come into contact with professor’s research. If we can not offer our excellent teachers benefits and proper pay, research professors will end up teaching students who are ill-prepared because they have had bad teachers.

G. Swanson, immediate past chair, noted that the document states that tenure track faculty decide on whether there will be any such auxiliary faculty. The proposal opens the way for the position, but it does not require that any auxiliary faculty be placed in a department -- it is optional. If the English department does not support the position, they do not have to implement it. No burden is being placed on the department in which you will have auxiliary faculty if you have temporary instructors.

S. Tuzun (Plant Pathobiology), said that research does affect teaching if you are in hard science. Faculty must keep updated and must bring new material to students. Tuzun admitted that he could not comment about the faculty in the English or Philosophy departments. He voiced his support for the policy because he believes auxiliary faculty plays a major role in an institution. He said that 60-70% of other universities has a policy to hire non-tenure track faculty that do not replace tenure track faculty. Tuzun sees the need for this both as a scientist and as a teacher.

One Senate member asked how to address a possible situation that could take place (for example in the year 2000) in which a department hits the 25% cap and then eight years later decides to change direction and fill more permanent positions – is there a lock to the 25% base.

Heath says that you don’t have to maintain the percentage, but there is nothing in the document that says you may replace auxiliary with permanent. Reasons for dismissal of auxiliary who have been promoted at least once include: Lack of departmental funds. Lack of need. Individual is unfit to perform duties. The reasons are much broader for tenure track faculty.

Speaking on behalf of the College of Liberal Arts, J. Heilman - for the record, the relationship between an active research role and an active teaching role is important in his department – and that it extends to all areas of our college.

C. Johnson (Communication Disorders) said that clinical training is an important component in her department. Currently, 40-45% of its faculty members is an instructor – their positions are critical to our role in supervising students. Johnson asked what the department should do.

Heath said that the cap would not be raised to 45%, but she has talked to the department head about the matter. The department can decide to have no auxiliary faculty, or have auxiliary faculty up to the cap. On the other hand, Heath said, there is talk of the clinical instructors positions coming down the road later, and this particular position may be better suited for Johnson’s department.

Speaking on the issue of clinical instructor positions, C. Curtis (Vice-president/Academic Affairs) said that there has been discussion with the deans involved. The deans have taken the issue back to their department heads to be further discussed.

D. Rygiel (English) wanted to stress A. Dunlop’s former comment. The English department spent some time looking at the proposal. The department, by votes of instructors and faculty, does not support the proposal for the university as a whole – not just as a department. Our department has 88 faculty members, 48 of those are temporary. He then asked who this proposal applies to apart from instructors. He has not been able to get an up to date answer to this question.

Heath stated that is applies to some research associates and research professors.

S. Brinson (Building Science) asked if there are caps on research professors. Heath said there were not.

A. Dunlop (English) said that the English department’s vote is against the principal. He believes the proposal compromises Auburn’s ideals as a research institution and that it constitutes a threat to the tenure system.

C. Bailey (Agriculture), Steering committee, said that the College of Agriculture is not normally associated with core classes but several members may be teaching the core once the transition to semesters takes effect. The College of Agriculture may find themselves associated with the 25% cap as well. The proposal’s impact extends beyond COSAM and Liberal Arts.

M. Watkins (Philosophy) would support greater protection for instructors. He fears that we will soon have a three-tier system in place of the current two-tier system. Watkins doesn’t think that the proposal will strengthen our teaching hand because we will not be able to keep the instructors that we have – and the instructors we have are too good.

A voice vote was not clear so a hand vote was taken. The proposal failed by a vote of 20-22.

A. Dunlop (English) introduced an alternative to the proposal recognizing the welfare committee give priority to consideration of extending health and other benefits to temporary and part time faculty on a pro-rated basis. He also suggested that the chair establish an Ad Hoc committee or use the present committee to consider other problems and needs of temporary/part-time faculty and to propose structures and procedures to address them.

Howze told Dunlop that the Senate would need to consider this proposal in writing. He asked that Dunlop provide the secretary with a copy of the proposal so that it may be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.

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